Open Cages (now Anima International)

How Open Cages Performs on our Criteria

Criterion 1: The charity has room for more funding and concrete plans for growth.

Before we can recommend a charity, we need to assess the extent to which they will be able to absorb and effectively utilize funding that the recommendation may bring in. Firstly, we look at existing programs that have need for additional funding to fulfil their existing purpose; secondly, we look at potential areas for growth and expansion. It is important to determine whether the barriers limiting progress in these areas are solely monetary, or whether there are other factors such as time or talent shortages. Since we can’t predict exactly how any organization will respond upon receiving more funds than they have planned for, this estimate is speculative, not definitive. It’s possible that a group could run out of room for funding more quickly than we expect, or come up with good ways to use funding beyond what we have suggested. Our estimates are indicators of the point at which we would want to check in with a group to ensure that they have used the funds they’ve received and are still able to absorb additional funding.

Recent Financial History

Open Cages has been steadily growing in size since their inception in 2012. At the end of 2015 they hired a dedicated fundraiser, which we believe has had a significant impact on their ability to raise funds; they achieved their 2016 fundraising goal by the third quarter.¹ Their budget has increased yearly from $11,169 in 2013 to $162,573 in 2016² and we expect it to continue to increase to approximately $210,000 in 2017 as they expand.³ They have recently been awarded a substantial grant⁴ by The Open Philanthropy Project (Open Phil) for $472,864 to be used over two years.⁵ Anima has also recently been awarded a grant from Open Phil in part to support a planned merger with Open Cages; this merger was announced very late in our evaluation process and we are unsure how it will affect Open Cages’ plans for the future or their fundraising abilities.⁶

Planned Future Expenses

Open Cages claims that they have a significant number of talented volunteers available—across the Eastern European countries they work in—who they would like to hire as paid staff.⁷ While they are gradually achieving this goal, additional funding would allow them to do this at a faster rate. When they received more funding than expected in 2016, they were able to make three new hires that year, which is a good indication that the hiring of new staff is currently limited by available funds.⁸ We expect that they would be able to hire around 5–20 staff in Poland in 2018 if they had sufficient funding to do so.

Open Cages is also investing more in their programs, such as their recent broiler chicken campaigns and their institutional meat reduction outreach.⁹ They also would like to expand further into Ukrainian and Russian speaking countries, as they feel that these are neglected areas where programs such as online education would be effective.¹⁰ Overall, these programs would likely benefit from additional funding—although there is a greater possibility for progress to be limited by time, especially with regard to becoming established in new areas.

Open Cages is enrolled in a charity donation scheme this year for the first time that allows the Polish population to donate 1% of their income to a chosen charity when filing their annual tax returns.¹¹ Open Cages told us beforehand that this scheme could raise between $0 to $500,000,¹² and later reported that it raised $50,000 in 2017.¹³

Conclusion

It seems that Open Cages’ expansion is mostly monetarily limited, and they have good plans for growth in several areas, particularly new staff hires. The addition of a fundraiser to their staff has greatly improved their fundraising ability, however we think there is still a significant gap that won’t be filled over the next year. We therefore think that they can take on $100,000–$800,000 in additional funds over the next year, after factoring in the grant from Open Phil.^{14, 15, 16}

Criterion 2: The charity engages in programs that seem likely to be highly impactful.

Before investigating the way a charity’s programs are implemented or the outcomes they’ve achieved, we consider the charity’s overall approach to animal advocacy. We expect effective charities to pursue approaches that seem likely to produce significant positive change for animals, though we note that there is significant uncertainty regarding the long-term effects of many interventions.

Open Cages focuses primarily on reducing the suffering of farmed animals, which we believe is a high-impact cause area. They pursue many different avenues for creating change for animals: they work to influence public opinion, build the capacity of the movement, influence industry, and build alliances. Some of Open Cages’ work may indirectly lead to legal change. Pursuing more than one avenue for change seems to be a good idea, because if one proves to be ineffective, Open Cages still might be impactful. However, we don’t think that charities that pursue multiple avenues for change are necessarily more impactful than charities that focus on one.

To communicate the process by which we believe a charity creates change for animals, we use theory of change diagrams. It is important to note that these diagrams are not necessarily complete representations of real-world mechanisms of change. Rather, they are simplified models that ACE uses to represent our beliefs about mechanisms of change. For the sake of simplicity, some diagrams may not include relatively small or uncertain effects.

Influencing Public Opinion

Open Cages works to influence individuals to adopt more animal-friendly attitudes and behaviors. We think that the impact of such work may be relatively limited compared to the impact of efforts to influence key influencers. However, we still think it’s important for the animal movement to target some outreach toward individuals, as a shift in public attitudes could lead to greater support for new animal-friendly policies. In fact, public outreach might be a necessary precursor to achieving institutional change.

Open Cages conducts undercover investigations of conditions on factory farms, which we think is a particularly effective intervention. They work to get as much media exposure as possible for their investigations,¹⁷ and there is some evidence of a negative correlation between media coverage of animal welfare and meat demand, at least in the U.S.¹⁸

Open Cages also works to effect change through various forms of grassroots outreach, including organizing festivals, leafleting, and using pay-per-view videos and virtual reality technology. There is currently very little research on the effectiveness of these methods, though we do not currently recommend the use of leafleting as we suspect that it is not as effective as some other means of public outreach.

Capacity Building

Working to build the capacity of the animal advocacy movement can have a far-reaching impact. While capacity-building projects may not always help animals directly, they can help animals indirectly by increasing the effectiveness of other projects.

Open Cages occasionally conducts and publishes research on effective advocacy interventions.¹⁹ Such research can play a pivotal role in how successful a movement can be. A group might expertly carry out a particular intervention, but if that intervention isn’t effective (or if it has negative effects), then the group is not as impactful as they could be. They may even unintentionally cause net harm. By investigating the effectiveness of interventions like virtual reality technology, Open Cages may be able to increase their impact. If their findings inform other groups’ work, they may over time achieve quite a high impact for a low cost.

Open Cages organizes and attends animal advocacy conferences. For instance, they organized the Conference on Animal Rights in Europe (CARE), which they tell us was the first effective farmed animal advocacy conference in Eastern Europe. Conferences provide opportunities for networking and sharing knowledge and experience, though there is little evidence available about their impact.

Influencing Industry

Working to influence the food industry can help animals by leading to welfare reforms or, less directly, by creating a climate in which it is easier for individuals to reduce their use of animal products. In the long term, putting pressure on the animal agriculture industry and paving the way for companies that produce alternatives to animal products could weaken the animal agriculture industry through the pressures of the marketplace, perhaps even without the presence of advocacy messages. Weakening the animal agriculture industry may enable stricter regulation of animal welfare.

Open Cages works with corporations to adopt better animal welfare policies and ban particularly cruel practices in the animal agriculture industry. We find that these interventions can be highly impactful when implemented thoughtfully.

Open Cages also works to support producers of plant-based alternatives to animal products, and to promote those alternatives to suppliers. We think that promoting plant-based products is a potentially high-impact way to influence the food system. Plant-based milk is already showing a tendency to take market share from the sales of conventional milk in the U.S., with sales in one category growing as sales in another category decline.²⁰ It seems plausible that plant-based meat will similarly take market share from the sales of conventional meat, especially as it becomes more cost-competitive, widely available, and harder to distinguish from conventional meat in taste and texture.

Building Alliances

Open Cages’ outreach to key influencers provides an avenue for high-impact work, since it can involve convincing a few powerful people to make decisions that influence the lives of millions of animals. This seems more efficient than working to reach many individuals in order to create an equivalent amount of change.

Open Cages builds relationships with Polish politicians and media and encourages them to consider animal welfare. They also lobbied Poland’s celebrity chefs (many of whom are featured in retailers’ branding) to condemn caged eggs.²¹ We think the effects of lobbying politicians, media, and celebrities can vary.

Criterion 3: The charity operates cost-effectively, according to our best estimates.

Open Cages runs several programs; we estimate cost-effectiveness separately for a number of these programs, and then combine our estimates to give a composite estimate of Open Cages’ cost-effectiveness. Note that all the estimates factor in associated supporting costs, including administrative and fundraising costs.²² We generally present our estimates as 90% subjective confidence intervals.²³ We think this quantitative perspective is a useful component of our overall evaluation because quantitative estimates of cost-effectiveness can be:

• Helpful in our mission to identify highly effective ways of helping animals,²⁴
• Useful in making direct comparisons between different charities or different interventions,²⁵ and
• Helpful for increasing our transparency.²⁶

However, the estimates of equivalent animals spared per dollar should not be taken as our overall opinion of the charity’s effectiveness, especially given that we choose not to account for some less easily quantified kinds of impact in this section, leaving them for our qualitative evaluation. Furthermore, our cost-effectiveness estimates are highly uncertain approximations of some of the short-term costs and short to medium-term benefits associated with Open Cages’ programs. As we have excluded more indirect or long-term impacts, the overall impact may be an underestimate. There is a very limited amount of evidence pertaining to the effects of many common animal advocacy interventions, which means that in some cases we have mainly used our judgement to assign quantitative values to parameters. Because charities have varying proportions of different types of impact, this makes our quantitative estimates particularly difficult to use to compare charities with a higher proportion of long-term impact to charities with a higher proportion of short-term impact.

We are concerned that readers may think that we have a higher degree of confidence in this cost-effectiveness estimate than we actually do. To be clear, this is a very tentative cost-effectiveness estimate and it plays only a limited role in our overall opinions of which charities and interventions are most effective.²⁷

Investigations

We estimate that in 2017 Open Cages will spend 25% of their budget, or around $54,000, on Investigations.^{28, 29} This will result in about 3–10 investigations released.^{30, 31, 32} We estimate that media coverage of these investigations will receive between 9 million and 50 million views; these numbers might count an individual viewer more than once, as they include all views in cases where when someone sees coverage of one or more investigations from multiple sources.^{33, 34, 35} This is an estimated cost of between $6,000 and $20,000 per investigation,³⁶ but only about $0.1 to $0.6 per 100 views.^{37, 38}

Communications

We estimate that in 2017 Open Cages will spend about 21% of their budget, or $44,000, on social media outreach and other communications, including their blog, Facebook page, etc.^{39, 40} We estimate that this year the videos they share will get between 2 million and 4 million unique views to 95% of the video length.^{41, 42, 43} This gives us a cost of between $1.00 and $2.00 per 100 video views to 95%.^{44, 45} However, we note that users also engaged with Open Cages’ content in many other ways, such as watching parts of videos, reading text posts, and reading blog posts.

Corporate Outreach

We estimate that in 2017 Open Cages will spend about 17% of their budget, or $35,000, on corporate outreach.^{46, 47} This is associated with some companies adopting new policies, and these policies seem to result in reduced suffering for some farmed animals. We estimate that Open Cages’ corporate outreach will help cause 12–24 policy changes^{48, 49, 50} and we guess that these changes would affect 600,000–30 million laying hens.^{51, 52} The policies mainly focus on moving laying hens to cage-free systems.

Consumer Outreach

We estimate that in 2017 Open Cages will spend about 14% of their budget, or $29,000, on consumer outreach.^{53, 54} This will include the distribution of between 60,000 and 100,000 pieces of literature,^{55, 56, 57} as well as 400–1,200 pay-per-view views.^{58, 59, 60} That comes to a cost of $2.10 to $3.00 per person reached.^{61, 62}

Grassroots and Movement Building

We estimate that in 2017 Open Cages will spend about 12% of their budget, or around $24,000 on grassroots and movement building.^{63, 64} This will include the supporting of 10–20 local groups,^{65, 66, 67} and 800–1,600 activists participating in activist training sessions.^{68, 69, 70} That comes to a cost per activist attending an activist training of $20 to $30.^{71, 72}

International Outreach

We estimate that in 2017 Open Cages will spend about 6.4% of their budget, or $14,000, on International Outreach.^{73, 74} In 2017, Open Cages’ work in this area will include expanding to Estonia, Ukraine, and Belarus, as well as sharing resources and mentoring when needed with groups in Russia, Latvia, Bulgaria, Moldova, Japan, Czechia, and Slovakia.⁷⁵

Lobbying

We estimate that in 2017 Open Cages will spend about 3% of their budget, or $6,400, on Lobbying.^{76, 77} Open Cages reports that the main outcome of their lobbying with other groups in 2017 could include a fur ban in Poland.⁷⁸

Institutional Meat Reduction

We estimate that in 2017 Open Cages will spend about 1.4% of their budget, or $2,900, on Institutional Meat Reduction.^{79, 80} This will cause 300–600 venues to introduce plant-based options.^{81, 82, 83}

All Activities Combined

To combine these estimates into one overall cost-effectiveness estimate, we need to translate them into comparable units. This will introduce several sources for errors and imprecision, so the resulting estimate should not be taken literally—it is a rough estimate, and not a precise calculation of cost effectiveness.⁸⁴ However, it will provide some information about whether Open Cages’ efforts are comparable in efficiency to other charities’.⁸⁵

We use our leafleting cost-effectiveness estimate to estimate that Open Cages spares between -10 and 1 animals from life on a farm per dollar spent on consumer outreach.^{86, 87, 88} We also use that estimate and a subjective adjustment factor⁸⁹ to roughly estimate that Open Cages spares between -30 and 2 farmed animals per dollar spent on investigations.^{90, 91} We consider multiple factors⁹² to roughly estimate that Open Cages spares an equivalent of between -100 and 300 animals per dollar spent on corporate outreach.^{93, 94, 95}

We exclude lobbying results from our final cost-effectiveness estimates and don’t attempt to convert them into an equivalent animals spared figure; it is too difficult to disentangle the effects of this work from the total effects already captured by our other estimates. We also exclude international outreach results—as well as grassroots and movement building results—from our final cost-effectiveness estimate, because it is too speculative to estimate the short-term effects of those programs.

We weight our estimates by the proportion of funding Open Cages spends on each activity; overall, we roughly estimate that, in the short-term, after excluding the effects of some of their programs, Open Cages spares between -20 and 50 animals per dollar spent.^{96, 97, 98} This equates to between -20 and 50 years of farmed animal life averted per dollar spent.^{99, 100, 101} Because of extreme uncertainty even about the strongest parts of our calculations, we feel that there is currently limited value in further discussing these estimates. Instead, we give weight to our other criteria.

Criterion 4: The charity possesses a strong track record of success.

Have programs been well executed?

One of Open Cages’ most longstanding programs is their investigation work. In 2012, they started performing extensive investigations of the fur trade; over the course of that year, they obtained footage from over 50 farms and garnered substantial media attention.¹⁰² They released two further fur investigations in 2016,¹⁰³ but have largely shifted their focus towards caged egg farming.¹⁰⁴ They released their first investigation into egg production in 2014;¹⁰⁵ three months after the release of the investigation, the company they targeted went bankrupt.¹⁰⁶ They released further caged hen investigations in February 2016, which were featured on several TV news programs.¹⁰⁷ They have also experimented with virtual reality technology to present their investigations,¹⁰⁸ and have launched a study with the University of Warsaw to assess its impact.¹⁰⁹

They have also used their investigations to support their corporate outreach work. In 2017, they put pressure on Polish companies to commit to cage-free policies. They succeeded in obtaining commitments from all Polish discount stores and half of Polish retailers.¹¹⁰ They have started to expand their corporate outreach to Lithuania and Ukraine, but their work there is still in its early stages and has not yet resulted in any successes.^{111, 112} They have also had significant success in their fur-free retailer campaign, achieving a commitment from the largest Polish retail company to drop fur from their products.¹¹³

Open Cages is also involved in institutional meat reduction efforts. They approach restaurants to encourage them to introduce plant-based options; so far they have achieved success at 500 venues in Poland and 60 in Lithuania.¹¹⁴ This is comparable to the results of similar programs in Western European countries,¹¹⁵ and may be a good indicator of both Open Cages’ competence and the tractability of advocacy work in Eastern Europe. This work also allows them to conduct related potentially impactful projects in the future, such as providing a searchable website of pledged restaurants for consumers.

Have programs led to change for animals?

Undercover investigations have a history of inspiring stronger animal protection legislation and better corporate policies, both of which relieve some suffering for farmed animals.¹¹⁶ There is some evidence that the media attention generated by investigations may be correlated with a reduction in the demand for meat, although we are less certain how well this research translates to countries in Eastern Europe.¹¹⁷ It is difficult to establish how investigations affect animals in both the short and long term, but we think that Open Cages’ investigations have a strong record.

Their work investigating the fur industry in Poland could lead to change for animals once lobbying is successful, for example if legislation is introduced that meaningfully curtails the fur trade. As of October 2017, a bill is currently being drafted that includes the banning of fur; however, we are currently uncertain how successful this will be.¹¹⁸ Poland is the third largest fur producer in the world, and we think that such a ban could impact tens of millions of animals annually, if successful.¹¹⁹

The commitments made from Open Cages’ corporate outreach campaigns will potentially affect hundreds of millions of animals once they have been implemented, although there is more uncertainty over the specific numbers in this case than with other organizations, as Open Cages reports that Polish businesses tend to be secretive about specific details such as this.¹²⁰ As these commitments are not legally binding, it will be important to follow up with companies to ensure they are adhered to. As far as we are aware, Open Cages has not made explicit plans to follow up with companies yet; however, as most of these commitments are for 2024,¹²¹ it is probable that they will do so in the future. If these pledges are implemented, Open Cages’ corporate campaigns will have led to direct and measurable increases in the number of animals being raised under higher welfare standards. While Open Cages was mostly responsible for the successes of corporate campaigns in Poland, the corporate outreach work of the Albert Schweitzer Foundation in neighboring Germany likely had some influence on targeted companies that operate in both countries.¹²²

The change caused for animals as a result of Open Cages’ institutional meat reduction work is less clear. Making more plant-based options available in restaurants may help reduce vegetarian/vegan recidivism, and will likely generally decrease animal product consumption; however, this is also dependent on the consumer demand for plant-based options, and we don’t have a clear idea of the level of this demand in Poland.

Criterion 5: The charity identifies areas of success and failure and responds appropriately.

Open Cages’ organizational culture places a strong emphasis on experimenting with their programs and self-assessing on a regular basis.¹²³ They state that they are willing to acknowledge failures when they occur, and have shown their commitment to self-assessment and self-improvement by discarding several programs which they assessed as being relatively ineffective.¹²⁴ They aim to evaluate and reorient their tactics based on their long-term mission, including by systematically setting specific and measurable short-term goals that are linked to their overarching strategy, systematically assessing their programs’ performance, and changing their behavior in response to these self-assessments. We think the organization may benefit from setting goals or using metrics that more directly assess the number of animals affected by their programs.

Open Cages uses an Objectives and Key Results (OKR) framework to help set short-term goals relevant to their mission and long-term objectives.¹²⁵ These OKRs are set and reviewed each quarter, with each short-term objective linked to the overall strategic plan.¹²⁶ The OKR goals they have shared with us seem well designed for the purposes of self-evaluation; they are fairly specific and measurable, relevant to Open Cages’ goals, and plausibly achievable, though they do not always provide specific time horizons.^{127, 128} Our impression is that, in the past, Open Cages’ decision making has sometimes been guided more by their long-term goals than their programs’ short-term performance. For example, Open Cages’ initial focus was on conducting investigations to gain publicity, with the intent of laying the groundwork for corporate outreach and other advocacy programs that would eventually lead to change for animals.^{129, 130} Focusing on long-term goals in this manner could prevent an organization from overemphasizing results that are visible but do not match its aims. However, evaluating on short-term goals can also provide valuable guidance, informing an organization about its capacity to predict its programs’ outcomes, and about its capacity to succeed at a given task.

Every six months, Open Cages reevaluates their programs, soliciting feedback internally as well as from external sources such as other animal advocacy organizations.¹³¹ Based on an evaluation document they have shared with us, they appear to consider a program’s impact on farmed animals as a key consideration. The framework of assessment they have described to us includes important concerns such as opportunity costs, supporting the animal advocacy movement, and alignment with Open Cages’ overall strategy.¹³² Their assessment process also involves asking important questions related to measuring success and failure, such as how they plan to evaluate the program, how long they plan to pilot it, and whether they already have data indicating that they should rethink their strategy.¹³³ Metrics that they use to help evaluate specific programs include the number of restaurants that agree to provide vegan meals in response to their restaurant outreach, as well as the amount and overall sentiment of right-wing press discussion of their legal initiatives.^{134, 135} These metrics provide useful information, but we think an organization prioritizing among many different interventions could benefit from the use of metrics that are more directly related to their ultimate goals, rough estimates though they may be. Estimating the number of animals affected by programs such as banning fur or encouraging vegan menu options might be especially useful for determining these programs’ marginal cost-effectiveness and allocating marginal funds.

Open Cages appears to have a strong cultural commitment to trying out new programs, acknowledging when they have failed, and changing tactics in light of signs of such failures. They have told us they view failure as a “positive byproduct” of vigorous efforts to find the best way to effect change.¹³⁶ In the past, they have reportedly discarded some programs that they felt were less effective. For example, they reportedly stopped giving humane education talks at schools after a few months because they decided it was a relatively ineffective intervention, and stopped publishing an online magazine once they thought that it would be more efficient to direct readers to their website.¹³⁷ They also report that they have changed the focus of several programs in response to new information. For example, they claim to have learned much about performing and popularizing investigations after their first attempt, and now claim to get more media attention while running smaller-scale campaigns.¹³⁸

Criterion 6: The charity has strong leadership and a well-developed strategic vision.

Open Cages appears to have a strong commitment to finding and implementing effective ways to help farmed animals.¹³⁹ We believe that their work contributes significantly to the animal advocacy movement’s growth by helping it expand to neglected countries in Eastern Europe. As a Polish nonprofit association, Open Cages is required to have a board and a decision-making voting body composed of active Open Cages members.¹⁴⁰ They are taking steps to include nonvoting members and external advisors in their decision-making process.¹⁴¹

The charity’s mission emphasizes effectively reducing suffering/helping animals.

A strategy document that Open Cages provided to us indicates that their core values include helping farmed animals (especially because of how many there are), as well as identifying the best ways to do so, both by consulting the scientific evidence and by experimenting with and evaluating their programs.¹⁴²

As discussed in Criterion 5, Open Cages makes efforts to explore promising programs, self-evaluate, and respond to evidence, indicating a commitment to effectiveness. Given their mission and their history of working to explore and evaluate interventions, we expect Open Cages to remain committed to effectively helping animals.

The strategy of the charity supports the growth of the animal advocacy movement as a whole.

We believe that Open Cages works in a relatively neglected area of animal advocacy, as there appear to be few other organizations in Poland pursuing programs similar to theirs, especially in the area of farmed animal advocacy.^{143, 144} They have also helped several other organizations work in Poland, such as ProVeg and the Albert Schweitzer Foundation, whom they have given advice on strategy, legal issues, and recruiting.¹⁴⁵ They believe they will be able to coordinate corporate campaigns with the Albert Schweitzer Foundation in the future, and are currently in contact with them about this.¹⁴⁶ They have also been coordinating their fur campaign with the organization Viva!¹⁴⁷

Open Cages also appears to put significant focus on growing the animal advocacy movement in relatively neglected countries in Eastern Europe. They have helped start a network of Eastern European animal charities to target countries with relatively small farmed animal movements.¹⁴⁸ Collaboration with these groups allows Open Cages to share their strategy, know-how, and experience, which is particularly important given that Open Cages anticipates that these newer groups will face challenges similar to those that they themselves faced.¹⁴⁹ Open Cages encourages motivated activists in nearby countries to start their own organizations, offering support, mentoring, and fundraising.¹⁵⁰ In addition, Open Cages is a member of international coalitions such as the Open Wing Alliance, the Fur Free Alliance, and the Eurogroup for Animals.^{151, 152}

The board of the charity includes members with diverse occupational backgrounds and experiences.

The board includes three Open Cages co-founders: President Dobroslawa Gogloza, Vice-President Pawel Rawicki, and Vice-President Ilona Rabizo, all of whom we believe work for Open Cages full-time. Board member Jakub Stencel, Open Cages’ development specialist, appears to mainly have work experience at Open Cages.¹⁵³ The remaining three Board Members are computer scientist Krzysztof Witalewski, accountant Bogna Domagalska, and Marta Cendrowicz, who has experience in for-profit customer service and management. These Board Members each use their specialized skills for Open Cages; Witalewski works on social media, Domagalska on accounting and legal work, and Cendrowicz on corporate outreach.¹⁵⁴

According to U.S. best practices, nonprofit boards should be comprised of at least five people who have little overlap with an organization’s staff or other related parties.¹⁵⁵ However, there is only weak evidence that following these best practices is correlated with success, and if they are correlated, that may be because more competent organizations are more likely to both follow best practices and to succeed—rather than because following best practices leads to success. As a young, largely volunteer-run organization based in Poland, we think it is reasonable that Open Cages’ Board Members all conduct significant amounts of work for the organization. In fact, they have told us that they are legally required to choose active Open Cages members for the board, as Polish nonprofit associations are supposed to be self-governed. They are currently working to establish an advisory board, mostly in order to bring in more knowledge and experience from the business sector, but it is not common Polish practice to have such a board.¹⁵⁶

The evidence for the importance of board diversity is somewhat stronger than the evidence recommending board sizes of five or greater, in large part because there is a significant body of literature indicating that team diversity generally improves performance. However, the evidence we are aware of for the importance of board diversity on organizational performance specifically is less strong.¹⁵⁷ Although Open Cages’ Board Members lack occupational diversity in that several of them work full-time with the organization, they do bring a variety of expertise in areas that are important for Open Cages’ operations.

The board of the charity participates regularly in formal strategic planning on behalf of the charity, and involves other stakeholders in that process.

As a Polish nonprofit association, Open Cages is required to have a fifteen-member voting assembly which makes strategic decisions for the organization; their board is composed of seven of these members.¹⁵⁸ The board is heavily involved both in the organization’s planning and in Open Cages’ major campaigns.^{159, 160} There are also currently two non-voting staff members who are invited to biannual meetings of the voting assembly.¹⁶¹ Open Cages’ specific strategies vary a lot depending on the individual campaign and depending on who is running it, so they communicate as much as they can with their campaign coordinators in order to allow them a voice.¹⁶² For example, they have regular online meetings and day-long staff retreats to discuss their plans and staff members’ potential concerns.¹⁶³

Criterion 7: The charity has a healthy culture and a sustainable structure.

Open Cages is a largely volunteer organization that is just beginning to professionalize and set formal structures in place for some aspects of their culture. Financially, they’ve been very cautious insofar as they have actively sought funding from multiple sources and have not allowed their growth to outpace their fundraising ability.^{164, 165} Their culture is strong in some ways, including excellent volunteer involvement at all levels and good respect for and use of the diversity among their volunteers.¹⁶⁶ However, there are some areas in which more formal policies could help to make staff and volunteers’ experiences more consistent and positive, including around professional development and around the handling of harassment or other conflict within the organization.¹⁶⁷

The charity receives support from multiple and varied funding sources.

Open Cages is primarily supported by donations, but receives some additional support through grants from other animal advocacy organizations and from revenue-generating activities including VegFests, the Conference on Animal Rights in Europe, and merchandising.^{168, 169} The grants from other organizations support specific positions; they told us that Anima pays to fund one staff position, the Open Wing Alliance funds a corporate outreach coordinator, and the Open Wing Alliance and PETA have each committed funds to help Open Cages staff operations in nearby countries.^{170, 171} Open Cages takes a very cautious tone when discussing their funding situation, which they say is because Poland is not a good place to fundraise for an animal advocacy organization and the base of potential donors is small; their first staff positions were funded by committed Open Cages volunteers.^{172, 173} This seems to have made Open Cages very proactive about seeking funding opportunities, as reflected by the many sources of funding listed here as well as their efforts to attract individual donors both in and outside of Poland.¹⁷⁴

The charity provides staff and volunteers with opportunities for training and skill development, helping them grow as advocates.

Open Cages is primarily a volunteer organization and has no formal policies encouraging staff members’ professional development.¹⁷⁵ However, they have an extensive set of training options and programs for volunteers, and as they hire staff, they try to hire from their volunteers, who already know how to run their programs.¹⁷⁶ For example, they organize a yearly training retreat, match volunteers with others who can help them learn needed skills, and sometimes pay for external trainings that are relevant to the work a volunteer does for Open Cages.¹⁷⁷ Additionally, they tell us that volunteers trained by Open Cages have used the skills they learned with the organization to secure jobs with other organizations.¹⁷⁸

The two volunteers we spoke with gave differing accounts of how much potential for training Open Cages offers.^{179, 180} Both agreed that a large amount of training within the organization is done by pairing volunteers with others who can show them how to do things.¹⁸¹ However, while this was all the training that one volunteer was aware of, another volunteer also knew of other training opportunities, such as getting support from Open Cages to attend external courses.¹⁸² It’s possible that the training volunteers receive or are aware of depends on their role within the organization or the city that they live in.

The charity has staff from diverse backgrounds and with diverse personal characteristics (e.g., race, gender, age), and views diversity as a resource that can improve its performance.

Poland is a very ethnically homogeneous country, which is important in interpreting the meaning of diversity for Open Cages’ staff and volunteers.¹⁸³ Since Open Cages’ staff is so small and comes from the ranks of their volunteers, they mostly think of diversity as it applies to their volunteer members.¹⁸⁴ They actively try to recruit volunteers with diverse backgrounds and skill sets, because doing so increases their ability to reach out to different communities.¹⁸⁵ For example, they specifically seek out Russian-speaking volunteers, who can help them build programs in nearby countries where Russian is spoken; some of their volunteers are Ukrainian immigrants and are very involved in Open Cages’ efforts to expand to Ukraine, because they are very informed about important considerations there.¹⁸⁶

The charity works to protect employees from harassment and discrimination.

Open Cages follows local laws that prohibit discrimination in employment; they also make many kinds of information, such as compensation levels, public in order to further avoid any possibility of discrimination.¹⁸⁷ We spoke confidentially with two volunteers and performed some due diligence searches, and we did hear one report of one Open Cages activist harassing another.^{188, 189} While that report was not detailed enough for us to investigate further, our source also noted that due to the social structure of the organization, it is hard to report some kinds of problems as it is not clear who can help impartially and who would have a conflict of interest with regard to a given situation.¹⁹⁰ We would suggest that as Open Cages continues to professionalize, they consider developing more formal frameworks for resolving situations of harassment or conflict within the organization in a fair and reliable manner.

Questions for Further Consideration

Why does a significant portion of Open Cages’ outreach focus on dietary change rather than directly shifting public attitudes?

Some argue that the effectiveness of a strong focus on individual behavior change (e.g., dietary change) isn’t supported by historical examples or other empirical evidence.^{191, 192, 193} They might argue that most successful social movements have focused their rhetoric on the institution they opposed rather than on individual behavior supporting that institution.¹⁹⁴ Critics also believe it is difficult to build a mass movement when the perceived criteria for acceptance in the movement is a lifestyle change, and that a consumer focus provokes less moral outrage than focusing on the institution, thus missing an important driver of activism and subsequent social change.¹⁹⁵

It’s important to note that work on dietary change and on attitude change are not mutually exclusive; many animal advocacy activities, including many of Open Cages’ programs, could plausibly lead to both types of change. In general, however, some of Open Cages’ programs seem more focused on incremental change than on building a mass movement supporting institutional change.

Open Cages sees outreach focused on personal dietary change as a tool to develop opportunities for institutional changes and changes in public attitude.¹⁹⁶ They are aware that focusing on individual dietary changes will not cause a breakthrough in the situation of farmed animals on its own, but believe it can help create space for shifting more general public attitudes and making small but meaningful corporate and legislative changes.¹⁹⁷ They also believe that it will generally be easier to change people’s attitudes if they are not so invested in everyday use of animal products.¹⁹⁸

Open Cages hopes that by engaging in dietary outreach, they are able to help form a good consumer base for new startups in plant-based meat alternatives.¹⁹⁹ They also believe that it is important that animal protection organizations educate their followers and prepare them for new technologies that could replace animal products.²⁰⁰ By making sure that the movement is considered expert in this area, advocates might be able to mitigate the risk that people will oppose cultured meat in the same way that many currently oppose GMOs.²⁰¹

Some of Open Cages’ activities (perhaps particularly protests) have the potential to backfire, either by leading to legislation targeting activists or by negatively affecting public opinion of activists. Should donors support such activities?

Critics have argued that some tactics employed by animal advocates, including protests, risk turning public opinion against the animal advocacy movement.²⁰² While these activities make up a small proportion of Open Cages’ work, they do organize and participate in protests and demonstrations.²⁰³ Investigations make up a larger part of Open Cages’ work and have sometimes led to a slightly different type of backlash in which industry and government respond by attempting to pass laws that target advocates, such as ag-gag legislation in the United States.²⁰⁴ While Open Cages tries to maintain good relationships with media and governments, it’s possible that they could encounter this sort of backlash, particularly when working in countries where they are not very experienced with the responses of local government.²⁰⁵

Open Cages sees the greatest threats to their work from government as arising not necessarily from their own tactics, but from the political climate in Eastern Europe, including in countries of interest to Open Cages such as Poland and Ukraine.²⁰⁶ There is a possibility that governments there will try to repress freedoms that Open Cages relies on for their work—and that civil society more generally relies on—such as the ability to freely gather in public.²⁰⁷ Open Cages is somewhat resilient to tactics that might be employed in such a case, because they don’t rely on the government for funding. Nevertheless, they are closely watching the situation and keeping themselves informed of opportunities to form alliances to fight any restrictions.²⁰⁸

While Open Cages is aware of the potential for certain tactics to backfire and result in advocates becoming targets of ridicule or anger, they haven’t found that to be the case with their work in particular.²⁰⁹ They see their tactics as generally fairly moderate for their region, where more dramatic protests and blockades are in common use by many different movements or groups of people, and are part of the cultural heritage from resistance to the Soviet regime.²¹⁰ In fact, when Open Cages has participated in protests, they have often been organized at the grassroots level, rather than by Open Cages.²¹¹ Open Cages has had fur farmers try to tarnish their reputation by fabricating incidents of property damage or the release of animals, because they didn’t find anything Open Cages had actually done that was scandalous enough to provoke the response they wanted.²¹²

Does Open Cages worry that focusing on some of the most extreme confinement practices could lead to complacency with other forms of suffering farmed animals endure or with meat consumption?

Since pushing for welfare reforms often involves working directly with food and clothing industry companies, this work can give the public the impression that these companies treat their animals well when this is not the case, especially when animal advocates are incentivized to make the reforms seem like drastic improvements when animals still suffer substantially.²¹³ Critics would also argue that, empirically, welfare reforms such as banning battery cages reduce only a very small portion of the harm of animal agriculture—if any—so they are not the most cost-effective use of time.^{214, 215, 216}

In addition, some argue that welfare reforms (e.g., bans on battery cages) might lead consumers to think that farmed animals no longer suffer and that helping them is no longer a priority.²¹⁷ They cite as evidence that some corporations market themselves as “humane” and “ethical,” which suggests that appearing to support animal welfare does benefit those companies.²¹⁸ However, this may only reflect gains to individual companies from positioning themselves as the most humane option.²¹⁹ There isn’t much evidence that this kind of marketing increases animal product consumption on the whole, and there is some evidence of a negative correlation between media coverage of animal welfare and meat consumption.²²⁰

On the other hand, some advocates argue that this work could increase the credibility of the animal advocacy movement by showing that it can make progress for animals on an institutional scale, not just an individual one.²²¹ Single campaigns may not eliminate all the suffering in a specific area, but they can provide useful information and momentum for future campaigns. The success of welfare reforms also establishes the moral aspects of animal agriculture as a topic in the public domain, which seems important for further progress.

Open Cages does consider the possibility that their efforts will shift consumer attitudes in an unwanted direction, such as toward complacency, in their strategic planning.²²² In the case of welfare reforms, they think there is enough evidence against increasing complacency to allow them to pursue these campaigns.²²³ The most convincing argument they see is the fact that there is no historical precedent for such an effect, and there is weak positive evidence that these tactics decreases complacency, as in the campaigns of Henry Spira.²²⁴ Open Cages also believes that moral progress is likely gradual, and exposing people to the horrors of animal farming may be best done by focusing on the practices that people are most likely to be against.²²⁵ Finally, welfare reforms are relatively tractable and affect many animals, but they aren’t the only tactics Open Cages uses. By using additional tactics, they are also able to reach other, more receptive, audiences with arguments against animal farming and suffering.²²⁶

They still think that increasing complacency and providing moral excuses for eating animal products is a possible risk.²²⁷ Open Cages believes that animal advocates should consider such downsides of any intervention they employ and seek new data and evidence about whether current programs are net harmful both in the short term and the long term.²²⁸ They are ready to change approaches if new evidence emerges.²²⁹

There are many more farmed animals then there are animals used for fur. Open Cages seems to direct comparable resources towards advocacy for farmed animals and advocacy for animals used fur. Why does Open Cages do this?

ACE typically recommends advocacy focusing on animals farmed for food, because of the large number of animals this advocacy can affect.²³⁰ We estimate that in the U.S., over 99.6% of land animals used and killed each year are farmed for food, while under 0.1% are used for fur production.²³¹ While patterns of animal use vary somewhat in different countries and regions, we believe that the condition of farmed animals is one of the most important problems for animal advocates throughout the world. There is some variability as far as which species are most common in which countries; for example, chickens are very numerous in both the U.S. and Europe, while many more rabbits are farmed in Europe than in the U.S., so campaigns on behalf of rabbits make much more sense in Europe than in the U.S.²³² However, in general many more animals are farmed for food than used for other purposes, across a wide variety of countries.²³³

Open Cages considers animals farmed for fur to be part of the larger category of farmed animals.²³⁴ They address fur farming in particular for several reasons. First, the number of animals farmed for fur in both Poland and Lithuania is comparable to the number of animals in certain species farmed for food.²³⁵ Open Cages claims that in Poland, there are roughly as many fur-bearing animals as pigs or milk cows, while in Lithuania, the number of fur-bearing animals is comparable to the number of laying hens, and greater than the numbers of pigs, cows, goats, and sheep combined.^{236, 237} Thus, campaigns against fur in these countries can affect animals on a scale comparable with certain campaigns on behalf of other farmed animals. Second, Open Cages sees campaigns against fur farming as more tractable than campaigns against other types of farming, particularly in that it is much more plausible that they would be able to ban fur farming altogether than that they would be able to ban raising certain animals for food altogether.²³⁸ Finally, related to their greater tractability, campaigns against fur farming may help build the animal advocacy movement in ways that have already occurred in other countries, but are more recent or have not yet occurred in Eastern Europe.²³⁹

How tractable is promoting concern for farmed animals in Eastern Europe? How has Open Cages seen attitudes or policies shift since they began working on farmed animal campaigns, and are there any signs that attitudes will or will not be able to shift further?

Open Cages is the first charity we have reviewed that operates exclusively in Eastern Europe, although we have reviewed other charities, including ProVeg and the Albert Schweitzer Foundation, that do some work in Poland. Critics could be concerned that, due to political or social conditions in Poland and other Eastern European countries, advocacy techniques developed elsewhere won’t work as well in Eastern Europe, or even that no animal advocacy techniques will be highly effective there.²⁴⁰ We think that Open Cages’ accomplishments to date are sufficient to suggest that further progress will be possible, both in Poland and in other countries they’ve begun working in.²⁴¹ However, we acknowledge that we know less about the region in general and about animal advocacy there than we do about some other areas.

Open Cages says that they see several signs of tractability in Eastern Europe. For example, in Poland they found that the media initially did not cover animal welfare in the egg or fur industries, but began to cover it in conjunction with their investigations.²⁴² Now the media reportedly sometimes initiates coverage of animal welfare in these industries without an investigation, because it has become a newsworthy topic.²⁴³ However, they still see little media coverage of most other animal industries.²⁴⁴ Another indicator of tractability in Poland is that animal welfare issues have recently begun to be included in the platforms used by political parties, and may have played a role in some election results.²⁴⁵ Open Cages has also conducted some public polling on animal welfare issues in Lithuania and found that most people there are opposed to raising animals for fur and to housing hens in cages.²⁴⁶

---

1. “Just at the end of 2015, we identified that hiring one person as a dedicated fundraiser is the best investment.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part One (2017)
   “We managed to reach our 2016 fundraising goals by the third quarter.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part One (2017) 

2. Open Cages reports that in 2013 their budget was $11,169, in 2014 it was $41,818, in 2015 it was $66,234 and in 2016 it was $162,573. This information can be found in the Open Cages Overview (2017). 

3. In our 2017 Open Cages cost-effectiveness estimate we estimate Open Cages will spend approximately 210,000 in 2017. 

4. Further details of the grant can be found here. 

5. It is possible that additional funding will come from other major donors—we focus on Open Phil in particular because they are one of the most significant grantmakers in effective animal advocacy, they are transparent with their donations, and they have often made recurring donations to organizations. All of these factors give us a better idea of where they may donate money in the future compared to other sources. 

6. Further details of the grant to Anima can be found here. 

7. “Thanks to that we are not talent constrained too much as we have a lot of competent and motivated professionals available, but not yet able to hire.” —Open Cages’ Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

8. “Basically, we were able to hire a fundraiser only because a group of volunteers (myself included) decided to cover the cost of a new position that we considered necessary to ensure our further growth and development.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part One (2017) 

9. “Our present fundraising activities are focused on:

   • Filling hired staff gaps present in most Eastern countries to reinforce the organization and create a healthy work culture that is sustainable.
   • Expanding internationally to neglected areas— investing in our outreach in Ukrainian and Russian speaking areas.
   • Investing in corporate campaigns, especially broiler chicken campaigns.
   • Investing more resources in our meat reduction and plant based program that focuses on institutional outreach.
   • Increasing resources in corporate outreach.
   • Education—in-person and online educational outreach focused mostly on Russian-speaking population. Especially on Russian social media channels.”

   —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part One (2017) 

10. “Our present fundraising activities are focused on:

    • Filling hired staff gaps present in most Eastern countries to reinforce the organization and create a healthy work culture that is sustainable.
    • Expanding internationally to neglected areas— investing in our outreach in Ukrainian and Russian speaking areas.
    • Investing in corporate campaigns, especially broiler chicken campaigns.
    • Investing more resources in our meat reduction and plant based program that focuses on institutional outreach.
    • Increasing resources in corporate outreach.
    • Education—in-person and online educational outreach focused mostly on Russian-speaking population. Especially on Russian social media channels.”

    —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part One (2017) 

11. “There is a special system in Poland where individuals can give 1% of their income when doing taxes at the end of the year. This will be the first year that Open Cages will be seeing results from the 1% campaign, and anything from zero to half a million dollars is possible.” —Conversation with Dobrosława Gogłoza of Open Cages (2017) 

12. “There is a special system in Poland where individuals can give 1% of their income when doing taxes at the end of the year. This will be the first year that Open Cages will be seeing results from the 1% campaign, and anything from zero to half a million dollars is possible.” —Conversation with Dobrosława Gogłoza of Open Cages (2017) 

13. Private communication with Open Cages, 2017 

14. This range is a subjective confidence interval (SCI). An SCI is a range of values that communicates a subjective estimate of an unknown quantity at a particular confidence level (expressed as a percentage). We generally use 90% SCIs, which we construct such that we believe the unknown quantity is 90% likely to be within the given interval and equally likely to be above or below the given interval. 

15. This estimate is based on our room for more funding Guesstimate model. 

16. The method we use does calculations using Monte Carlo sampling. This means that results can vary slightly based on the sample drawn. Unless otherwise noted, we have run the calculations five times and rounded to the point needed to provide consistent results. For instance, if sometimes a value appears as 28 and sometimes it appears as 29, our review gives it as 30. 

17. “Investigations proven [sic] to be the best interventions to secure media hits. They create public debate and raise many questions about welfare of animals in industrial farming and provide material we can reuse later in our campaigns.” —Open Cages’ Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

18. See, for example:
    Animal Charity Evaluators. (2016). “Models of Media Influence on Demand for Animal Products.” Animal Charity Evaluators.
    Cordts, A., Nitzko, S., & Spiller, A. (2014). “Consumer Response to Negative Information on Meat Consumption in Germany.” International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 17(A), 83–106.
    Tiplady, C. M., Walsh, D. B., & Phillips, C. J. C. (2013). “Public Response to Media Coverage of Animal Cruelty.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26(4), 869–885.
    Tonsor, G. T., & Olynk N. J. (2010). “Impacts of Animal Well-Being and Welfare Media on Meat Demand.” Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62(1), 59–72. 

19. “After we have started using Virtual Technology in our advocacy we started to wonder if there are any significant benefits over traditional footage. We concluded we want to test it due to lack of scientific materials on its effect. In collaboration with the University of Warsaw we have designed and launched an experiment.” —Open Cages’ Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

20. Between 2010 and 2015, plant-based milk sales (particularly almond milk sales) increased, while the total milk market shrunk by over $1 billion in the U.S., according to Nielsen. 

21. “We invited famous Polish cooks to talk about released footage of cage farming and they’ve condemned it. This was one of our most covered [stories] in the news media so far.” —Open Cages’ Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

22. We assume that these costs are evenly allocated across the interventions, and distribute them as such. 

23. The method we use does calculations using Monte Carlo sampling. This means that results can vary slightly based on the sample drawn. Unless otherwise noted, we have run the calculations five times and rounded to the point needed to provide consistent results. For instance, if sometimes a value appears as 28 and sometimes it appears as 29, our review gives it as 30. 

24. Because we are committed to the principles of effective altruism, one of our primary goals is to identify the most effective ways to help animals, given limited resources. We consider all seven of our evaluation criteria to be indicators of cost effectiveness. If we were able to model charities’ actual cost effectiveness with very high confidence, we would make our recommendations based heavily on our CEEs. The most cost-effective charities are, after all, the ones that allow donors to have the greatest positive impact with their donations. Even given the risks and uncertainties described above, directly estimating cost effectiveness is one of the best ways we know of to identify highly cost-effective programs. 

25. Cost-effectiveness estimates are sometimes useful for comparing different charities or interventions to one another. We develop CEEs using consistent methodology and data so that our CEEs for similar charities are meaningfully comparable. Though there are many sources of error that might influence our estimates of the effects of a given charity or intervention, some sources of error may be unlikely to influence our CEEs of charities relative to one another.
    Suppose, for example, that Charities A and B both spend 100% of their funds on leafleting, but we estimate that Charity A spares 1–3 animals per dollar and Charity B spares 8–10 animals per dollar. Our estimate of the effectiveness of distributing leaflets might be too high or too low, but it would appear that Charity B is more cost-effective than Charity A, regardless. They might be distributing more leaflets than Charity A at the same cost. It’s also possible that, in some cases, our use of CEEs skews our comparison between charities. We are not able to make CEEs for every charity we evaluate. We do not attempt to estimate the cost effectiveness of charities that have mostly long-term or indirect outcomes. It’s not always clear how we should think about the effectiveness of these charities relative to the effectiveness of charities for which we’ve made CEEs. 

26. We find that, in some ways, the quantitative components of our evaluations are easier for our readers to interpret than the qualitative components. Assigning numbers to uncertain values allows us to be clear about the effects we expect an intervention to have. It allows our readers to identify specific points on which they may disagree. If our evaluations were entirely qualitative in nature, it might be harder for people who disagree with us about the effectiveness of a program to pinpoint the source of their disagreement, since our qualitative statements are more open to interpretation than our quantitative ones. 

27. Further information about our use of cost-effectiveness estimates is available here. 

28. Open Cages reported that for 2016 and the beginning of 2017 they spent $43,995 on investigations. This information can be found in Open Cages’ Expenses (2016–2017). 

29. In our 2017 Open Cages cost-effectiveness estimate we assume that Open Cages’ spending for 2017 matches their spending for 2016 and the beginning of 2017. We account for non-direct costs of programs such as fundraising, management, and administration by assuming that these costs are evenly allocated across the programs and distributing them as such. 

30. Open Cages reported that for 2016 to mid-2017 they released four investigations focusing on animals farmed for food and six investigations focusing on animals farmed for fur. This information can be found in Open Cages’ Accomplishments (2016–2017). 

31. In our 2017 Open Cages cost-effectiveness estimate we use Open Cages’ reported achievements for 2016 to mid 2017 to estimate their achievements for the entire year of 2017. 

32. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: 3.1 to 10, 3.1 to 11, 3.1 to 10, 3.1 to 10, and 3.1 to 10 investigations released. 

33. “The estimated reach is at least 3.5 million views in press or TV and at least 5 million views on social media in both Poland and Lithuania.

    • A Polish fur farm investigation from November 2016 was still publicized in 2017, and had a combined estimated audience of 2.5 million viewers.
    • Lithuanian egg-laying hen farm investigation has reached at least 1 million people through TV news and major online newspapers.
    • Additionally, videos featuring Open Cages’ investigations had approximately 3.6 million views on our own Facebook page (estimated total for 2017: 4.8 million). Together with coverage of investigation in Lithuania this makes over 5 million views.

    Please note that these numbers can vary significantly year to year as most media attention is brought to major investigations which are not published frequently.
    Occasionally our investigations are featured in news publications outside Poland and Lithuania. This year such publications included reportage TV shows in Germany an article and video in Mail Online (dailymail.co.uk) which has up to 14.8 million unique daily visitors.
    At this moment we are building our media contacts in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, so that in the future we are able to get some media coverage of investigations there. It is likely to happen, because markets in this region are very interconnected.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

34. In our 2017 Open Cages cost-effectiveness estimate we use the reported number of views of Open Cages’ investigations to estimate the number of views that their investigations will receive for the entire year of 2017. 

35. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: 9.5 to 52 million, 9.3 to 53 million, 9.6 to 50 million, 9.5 to 52 million, and 9.5 to 54 million views of investigations through media coverage. 

36. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: $5,500 to $18,000, $5,400 to $19,000, $5,600 to $18,000, $5,500 to $18,000, and $5,600 to $18,000 per investigation. 

37. In our 2017 Open Cages cost-effectiveness estimate we estimate this range by dividing 100 times our estimate of the money Open Cages allocated to investigations by our estimate of the number of views Open Cages’ investigations will receive in 2017. 

38. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: $0.12 to $0.63, $0.11 to $0.64, $0.12 to $0.62, $0.12 to $0.63, and $0.11 to $0.62 per 100 views. 

39. Open Cages reported that for 2016 and the beginning of 2017 they spent $35,810 on communications. This information can be found in Open Cages’ Expenses (2016–2017). 

40. In our 2017 Open Cages cost-effectiveness estimate we assume that Open Cages’ spending for 2017 matches their spending for 2016 and the beginning of 2017. We account for non-direct costs of programs such as fundraising, management, and administration by assuming that these costs are evenly allocated across the programs and distributing them as such. 

41. From the Facebook data that Open Cages provided we estimated that in the previous 90 days they had approximately 780,000 unique video views to 95% of the length of the video. 

42. In our 2017 Open Cages cost-effectiveness estimate we extrapolate from our estimate of the number of views in the previous 90 days to make an estimate for the entire year of 2017. 

43. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were 2 to 4 million, 2 to 4 million, 2 to 4 million, 2 to 4 million, and 2 to 4 million unique video views to 95% of the video’s length. 

44. Our estimate was calculated by assuming Open Cages’ expenses in 2017 would match their expenses for 2016 and the beginning of 2017 and by adjusting the reported program budget to account for non-program costs. We then divided our estimate of the total of this program’s costs by our estimate of the number of views to 95% that Open Cages’ videos would receive over Facebook in 2017. For the complete model see our 2017 Open Cages cost-effectiveness estimate. 

45. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: $1.1 to $2.2, $1.1 to $2.2, $1.1 to $2.2, $1.1 to $2.2, and $1.1 to $2.3 per 100 views to 95% of the video’s length. 

46. Open Cages reported that for 2016 and the beginning of 2017 they spent $28,850.67 on corporate outreach. This information can be found in Open Cages’ Expenses (2016–2017). 

47. In our 2017 Open Cages cost-effectiveness estimate we assume that Open Cages’ spending for 2017 matches their spending for 2016 and the beginning of 2017. We account for non-direct costs of programs such as fundraising, management, and administration by assuming that these costs are evenly allocated across the programs and distributing them as such. 

48. In October 2017, Open Cages reported that for 2017: “[…] we have already secured 12 policies, mostly from the retail sector. All those policies were a result of communication with our corporate team. One of the policies involves also retail operations in Portugal and Colombia. We were also connected to a couple of policies together with the Open Wing Alliance. […] We are confident that before the end of the year we are going to secure at least 5 more policies and there is a strong possibility that the biggest chain of Polish restaurants will be among them, which hopefully will create a domino effect in another sector of the market—until today the majority of policies were in the retail sector. In Lithuania we started our corporate work much later, but already secured the first 3 cage-free policies.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

49. In our 2017 Open Cages cost-effectiveness estimate we use Open Cages’ reported number of policy changes achieved by October to make an estimate for how many would be achieved in the entire year of 2017. 

50. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: 12 to 24, 12 to 24, 12 to 24, 12 to 24, and 12 to 24 policy victories. 

51. We don’t have a good sense of how many farmed birds were affected by these policies. Open Cages was unable to provide an estimate because the companies involved wouldn’t say how many birds would be affected. However, we have a better sense of how many farmed birds were affected by L214’s somewhat similar policies. We would also guess that the total number of farmed birds in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine is approximately 100 million. We would guess that the policy changes associated with Open Cages in 2017 would not cover more than 20% of those birds and would not cover fewer than 0.5% of those birds. 

52. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: 570,000 to 30 million, 590,000 to 25 million, 590,000 to 26 million, 640,000 to 27 million, and 560,000 to 29 million hens affected yearly by these policies. 

53. Open Cages reported that for 2016 and the beginning of 2017 they spent $23,974 on consumer outreach. This information can be found in Open Cages’ Expenses (2016–2017). 

54. In our 2017 Open Cages cost-effectiveness estimate we assume that Open Cages’ spending for 2017 matches their spending for 2016 and the beginning of 2017. We account for non-direct costs of programs such as fundraising, management, and administration by assuming that these costs are evenly allocated across the programs and distributing them as such. 

55. Open Cages reports that they estimate the number of leaflets to be distributed this year to be 80,000 in Poland and Lithuania. This information can be found in Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017). 

56. In our 2017 Open Cages cost-effectiveness estimate we use Open Cages’ reported number of leaflets distributed to estimate how many would distributed in the entire year of 2017. 

57. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: 61,000 to 100,000, 60,000 to 100,000, 59,000 to 99,000, 60,000 to 100,000, and 60,000 to 100,000 leaflets distributed. 

58. Open Cages reported in mid-2017 that for 2016 to mid-2017 they had reached 860 people at festivals and 300 people on campuses. This information can be found in Open Cages’ Accomplishments (2016–2017). 

59. In our 2017 Open Cages cost-effectiveness estimate we use Open Cages’ reported achievements for 2016 to mid 2017 to estimate their achievements for the entire year of 2017. 

60. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: 400 to 1,200, 410 to 1,200, 390 to 1,200, 410 to 1,200, and 390 to 1,200 pay-per-view video views. 

61. Our estimate was calculated by assuming Open Cages’ expenses in 2017 would match their expenses for 2016 and the beginning of 2017 and by adjusting the reported program budget to account for non-program costs. We then divided our estimate of the total of this program’s costs by our estimate of the total number of people reached through this program, to estimate the cost per person reached. For the complete model see our 2017 Open Cages cost-effectiveness estimate. 

62. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: $2.10 to $3.50, $2.10 to $3.50, $2.10 to $3.40, $2.10 to $3.50, and $2.10 to $3.50. 

63. Open Cages reported that for 2016 and the beginning of 2017 they spent $20,083.33 on grassroots and movement building. This information can be found in Open Cages’ Expenses (2016–2017). 

64. In our 2017 Open Cages cost-effectiveness estimate we assume that Open Cages’ spending for 2017 matches their spending for 2016 and the beginning of 2017. We account for non-direct costs of programs such as fundraising, management, and administration by assuming that these costs are evenly allocated across the programs and distributing them as such. 

65. Open Cages reported that for 2016 to mid-2017 that they had supported 12 local groups in Poland and two local groups in Lithuania. This information can be found in Open Cages’ Accomplishments (2016–2017). 

66. In our 2017 Open Cages cost-effectiveness estimate we use Open Cages’ reported achievements for 2016 to mid 2017 to estimate their achievements for the entire year of 2017. 

67. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: 10 to 20, 10 to 20, 10 to 20, 10 to 20, and 10 to 20 local groups supported. 

68. “We estimate that in 2017 around 1,000 people participated in our initial trainings in Poland and Lithuania. We also started first initial trainings in Estonia, Ukraine, and Belarus, and we’re planning to organize the first one in Russia in December 2017. For all those countries combined the number will be between 100–150, but will grow significantly in the course of 2018.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

69. In our 2017 Open Cages cost-effectiveness estimate we use Open Cages’ reported number of people attending these activist training sessions in 2017 to make an estimate for how many will attend in 2017. 

70. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: 810 to 1,600, 800 to 1,600, 810 to 1,600, 800 to 1,600, and 810 to 1,600 activists participating in training sessions. 

71. Our estimate was calculated by assuming Open Cages’ expenses in 2017 would match their expenses for 2016 and the beginning of 2017 and by adjusting the reported program budget to account for non-program costs. We then divided our estimate of the total of this program’s costs by our estimate of the total number of activists attending this program, to estimate the cost per activist attending. For the complete model see our 2017 Open Cages cost-effectiveness estimate. 

72. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: $15 to $31, $16 to $31, $15 to $30, $15 to $31, and $15 to $31 per activist attending an activist training session. 

73. Open Cages reported that for 2016 and the beginning of 2017 they spent $11,183 on international outreach. Open Cages’ Expenses (2016–2017) 

74. In our 2017 Open Cages cost-effectiveness estimate we assume that Open Cages’ spending for 2017 matches their spending for 2016 and the beginning of 2017. We account for non-direct costs of programs such as fundraising, management, and administration by assuming that these costs are evenly allocated across the programs and distributing them as such. 

75. “As of 2017 we are working as an established organization in Poland and in Lithuania. We also expanded to Estonia, Ukraine, and Belarus. At the same time we are always open to help organizations in other countries. Countries where we formed partnerships that involve training of activists, sharing resources, and mentoring when needed, are: Russia, Latvia, Bulgaria, Moldova, Japan, Czechia, Slovakia. We made some attempts to start activist groups in Romania and Hungary, but at this moment there is a lack of even grassroots groups that could be willing to start farmed-animals oriented campaigning that we know of.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

76. Open Cages reported that for 2016 and the beginning of 2017 they spent $5,257 on lobbying. This information can be found in Open Cages’ Expenses (2016–2017). 

77. In our 2017 Open Cages cost-effectiveness estimate we assume that Open Cages’ spending for 2017 matches their spending for 2016 and the beginning of 2017. We account for non-direct costs of programs such as fundraising, management, and administration by assuming that these costs are evenly allocated across the programs and distributing them as such. 

78. “It is a very interesting moment to ask this question, because according to our knowledge the parliamentary animal welfare commission is now preparing a bill that would include a couple of improvements and the ban on farming of fur-bearing animals is among them.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

79. Open Cages reported that for 2016 and the beginning of 2017 they spent $2,413 on institutional meat reduction. This information can be found in Open Cages’ Expenses (2016–2017). 

80. In our 2017 Open Cages cost-effectiveness estimate we assume that Open Cages’ spending for 2017 matches their spending for 2016 and the beginning of 2017. We account for non-direct costs of programs such as fundraising, management, and administration by assuming that these costs are evenly allocated across the programs and distributing them as such. 

81. Open Cages reports that for 2016 to mid-2017 over 500 venues introduced plant-based options in Poland and around 60 in Lithuania. This information can be found in Open Cages’ Accomplishments (2016–2017). 

82. In our 2017 Open Cages cost-effectiveness estimate we use Open Cages’ reported number of restaurants introducing plant-based options for 2016 to mid-2017 to estimate the number of restaurants that will do so for the entire year of 2017. 

83. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: 340 to 650, 330 to 650, 330 to 640, 340 to 650, and 330 to 650 venues to adopt plant-based options. 

84. In fact, there are already sources of error and imprecision in our estimates to this point, most notably in uncertainties about how much time Open Cages employees spend on each activity we have described and about how administrative and fundraising costs should be assigned to the various areas. However, the amount of error in our following estimates can be expected to be considerably greater. 

85. We use similar assumptions for each of the groups for which we perform such a calculation. Other estimates of the cost-effectiveness of charities may use different assumptions and may therefore not be comparable to ours. 

86. Our estimates in this model were often calculated by using Open Cages’ reported budget for 2016 to mid-2017 and Open Cages’ reported achievements for 2016 to mid-2017. For the complete model see our 2017 Open Cages cost-effectiveness estimate. 

87. Note that these numbers reflect our estimate of the dietary effects of Open Cages’ in-person individual outreach work, and not the effects of movement-building, which were not estimated. 

88. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: -11 to 1.1, -7.4 to 1.3, -8.5 to 1.2, -7.5 to 1.2, -8.4 to 1.1 animals spared per dollar spent on consumer outreach. 

89. This factor attempts to account for the difference in depth and content of reports of investigations (i.e., less focus on reasons to reduce or eliminate animal product consumption) through the media. 

90. Our estimates in this model were often calculated by using Open Cages reported budget for 2016 to mid-2017 and Open Cages reported achievements for 2016 to mid-2017. For the complete model see our 2017 Open Cages cost-effectiveness estimate. 

91. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: -32 to 1.8, -28 to 1.7, -28 to 1.9, -27 to 1.8, and -39 to 1.6 animals spared per dollar spent on investigations. 

92. These factors include the number of animals affected by corporate policy changes associated with Open Cages, the extent to which Open Cages worked with other groups to achieve those victories, the extent to which these policy changes are accelerated as a result, and the proportion of suffering alleviated by those policy changes. 

93. Sometimes our estimated cost-effectiveness ranges include negative numbers if we are not certain that an intervention has a positive effect, and it could have a negative effect, even if we think that isn’t likely. This doesn’t necessarily mean we think those interventions are equally likely to harm animals as to help them. 

94. Our estimates in this model were often calculated by using Open Cages reported budget for 2016 to mid-2017 and Open Cages reported achievements for 2016 to mid-2017. For the complete model see our 2017 Open Cages cost-effectiveness estimate. 

95. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: -96 to 330, -110 to 330, -98 to 300, -110 to 290, and -98 to 250 animals spared per dollar spent on corporate outreach. 

96. Sometimes our estimated cost-effectiveness ranges include negative numbers if we are not certain that an intervention has a positive effect, and it could have a negative effect, even if we think that isn’t likely. This doesn’t necessarily mean we think those interventions are equally likely to harm animals as to help them. 

97. Our estimates in this model were often calculated by using Open Cages reported budget for 2016 to mid-2017 and Open Cages reported achievements for 2016 to mid-2017. For the complete model see our 2017 Open Cages cost-effectiveness estimate. 

98. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: -19 to 55, -22 to 53, -19 to 49, -19 to 47, and -19 to 42 animals spared per dollar spent by Open Cages. 

99. Sometimes our estimated cost-effectiveness ranges include negative numbers if we are not certain that an intervention has a positive effect, and it could have a negative effect, even if we think that isn’t likely. This doesn’t necessarily mean we think those interventions are equally likely to harm animals as to help them. 

100. Our estimates in this model were often calculated by using Open Cages reported budget for 2016 to mid-2017 and Open Cages reported achievements for 2016 to mid-2017. For the complete model see our 2017 Open Cages cost-effectiveness estimate. 

101. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: -17 to 58, -20 to 55, -17 to 50, -19 to 49, and -17 to 42 farmed animal years averted per dollar spent by Open Cages. 

102. “Five years later, the growth in popularity of veganism has been so visible that it’s possible to be more demanding. The goal is to focus on bigger chains at the moment and de-prioritize individual restaurants, in order to increase efficiency. They also plan to provide activists with a set of tools they can use to persuade local restaurants on their own. […] One of Open Cages’ biggest successes in terms of efficiency has been improving the way they conduct investigations. Their first investigation lasted over one year, and 50+ Polish fur farms were filmed.” —Conversation with Dobrosława Gogłoza of Open Cages (2017) 

103. “Despite this in 2016 we released two investigations, because of the progress in lobbying for [a] fur farming ban.” —Open Cages’ Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

104. “Our first investigations were from Polish fur farms to create a big media buzz and bring the issue to the public. Later we have slowly stopped momentum and focused on cage eggs and preparation for broiler chickens[,] which took a priority.” —Open Cages’ Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

105. “Even though we started contacting companies only this year, the real preparation to cage-free corporate outreach started 3 years ago, with [a] very successful investigation into one of the biggest egg producers in the country.” —Open Cages’ Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

106. “The company went bankrupt a couple of months after this investigation.” —Open Cages’ Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

107. “In February 2016 [we] release[d] [an] investigation of Polish cage egg farms. We knew it [would] be big news in [the] media, because our cage eggs investigations in 2014 caused a lot of media outcry. We invited famous Polish cooks to talk about [the] released footage of cage farming and [they] condemned it. This was one of our most covered [stories] in the news media so far. Some TV channels followed the story and created dedicated episodes in their news shows about cage farming.” —Open Cages’ Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

108. “To bring more novelty to the media we have also used Virtual Reality technology to show farming conditions and have more press releases published. In 2016 and 2017 we have successfully published virtual reality investigations of cage eggs and fox farming. While the use of novel technology was featured in some media, it went without big publicity. We expected more, but learned that while VR technology can be used sporadically, especially for new media or info stalls, it is not that good for traditional media[,] [m]ost likely due to its format and general fading of interest in the technology itself.” —Open Cages’ Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

109. “After we [had] started using Virtual Technology in our advocacy we started to wonder if there [were] any significant benefits over traditional footage. We concluded [that] we [wanted] to test it due to lack of scientific materials on its effect[s]. In collaboration with the University of Warsaw we have designed and launched an experiment. The article is planned to be published in 2017[,] [a]lthough we know the initial data from the research. There was a statistically significant effect of VR in the case of immersion[,] assessment of animals[‘] well-being in the farm[.] [T]he effect size was the greatest in behavioral observation of donations[:] taking [a] leaflet, taking a guide on the [plant-based] diet, signing a petition. There are hints that the effect may be partly mediated by Social Dominance Orientation. When the article [is] published we plant [sic] to make a digestible version of it available to [the] animal advocacy community.” —Open Cages’ Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

110. “At this moment all Polish discount stores and over half of Polish retailers [have] introduced cage-free policies.” —Open Cages’ Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

111. “In June 2017 we started introducing the cage-free campaign in Lithuania and Ukraine.” —Open Cages’ Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

112. “In Lithuania we started our corporate work much later, but already secured the first 3 cage-free policies.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

113. “The biggest win to date was in 2016. Our volunteer convinced the biggest Polish retailing company—LPP—to drop fur from their products. It has a total of more than 1,700 stores located in 18 countries, mainly in central and Eastern Europe—Poland, Germany, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Ukraine[,] and Croatia.” —Open Cages’ Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

114. “Estimated reach: over 500 venues introduced [plant-based] options in Poland and around 60

     in Lithuania” —Open Cages’ Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

115. For example, the French organization L214 has secured pledges from 840 venues. For comparison, the population in Poland is 38 million, and the population in France is 65 million.
     “In about 2 years, 840 restaurants have signed the VegOresto pledge. Although some restaurants already had a vegan option on their menu and just had to sign up, a significant number of restaurants actually added a vegan option after being contacted by L214.” —L214’s Accomplishments (2016-2017) 

116. For further information please see our review of undercover investigations. 

117. See, for example:
     Animal Charity Evaluators. (2016). “Models of Media Influence on Demand for Animal Products.” Animal Charity Evaluators.
     Cordts, A., Nitzko, S., & Spiller, A. (2014). “Consumer Response to Negative Information on Meat Consumption in Germany.” International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 17(A), 83–106.
     Tiplady, C. M., Walsh, D. B., & Phillips, C. J. C. (2013). “Public Response to Media Coverage of Animal Cruelty.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26(4), 869–885.
     Tonsor, G. T., & Olynk N. J. (2010). “Impacts of Animal Well-Being and Welfare Media on Meat Demand.” Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62(1), 59–72. 

118. “It is a very interesting moment to ask this question, because according to our knowledge the parliamentary animal welfare commission is now preparing a bill that would include a couple of improvements, and the ban on farming of fur-bearing animals is among them. At this moment it is impossible for us to know what will be the final outcome, but we know that some influential politicians from the ruling party are supporting the fur ban in Poland.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

119. Open Cages’ website mentions that “Poland is currently the third largest fur producer in the world.”

     This assertion is consistent with fur production data. For example, 2011 fur industry data from Kopenhagen Fur Auctions indicates that Poland was tied with the Netherlands as the third largest producer of mink, who are by far the animals most commonly killed for fur. More recently, Fur Europe has indicated that in 2016 around 4 million animals were killed for their fur, far fewer than in Poland. According to Fur Europe, around 8.6 million animals are killed for their fur each year in Poland, and around 1.5 million are killed for their fur each year in Lithuania. 

120. “Unfortunately the business owners in this region generally do not want to share any numbers with us since they consider it a business secret. Most legal regulations in this region favor privacy over transparency, even regarding business.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

121. As most welfare commitments globally are set to be in place by 2025, we expect most companies to introduce them sometime in 2024. We expect a similar timetable for the pledges made as a result of Open Cages’ campaigns. For example, the multinational cage-free pledges Open Cages has suggested they contributed to, such as those made by Lidl and Intercontinental Hotels Group (IHG), have deadlines of 2025.
     “We published investigations and persuaded the most prominent cooking celebrities in Poland (the faces of many brands of retailers) to condemn cage eggs. We also published the first Polish report on hen welfare. Companies started publishing cage-free policies for the first time (Aldi, Lidl, IHG, Accor).” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

122. “Some of it was a result of [the Albert Schweitzer Foundation]’s work in Germany and pressure on German companies to include other countries in their policies.” —Open Cages’ Accomplishments (2016–2017) 

123. “For every campaign that Open Cages launches, there is a strong focus on tracking results. This allows the organization to eliminate the less successful programs. Open Cages is the first organization focused on farmed animals in Poland, and they often explore new, untested methods and strategies—revising their list of programs every six months.” —Conversation with Dobrosława Gogłoza of Open Cages (2017) 

124. “Open Cages regularly tests new, larger projects, then meets to evaluate and discuss them. There is a very open culture that allows people to speak honestly without fear of offending others. Within the organization, failure is seen as a positive byproduct of a strong and determined effort—whereas lack of failures can indicate a lack of effort.” —Conversation with Dobrosława Gogłoza of Open Cages (2017) 

125. “Currently, as a group that works on many projects simultaneously to set short term goals, we use [an] objectives tracking tool called OKR (Objectives and Key Results)[.]” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

126. “The basic idea is that in Otwarte Klatki we have long-term goals to which people or groups link when setting their OKR. That way we can split big long-term goals as measurable and divided tasks between our groups and people. The OKR are set and reviewed quarterly and annually […] Every set objective links to the strategic plan above.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

127. When considering how well charities assess success and failure, one useful consideration is whether their goals are SMART—specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound. Specific, well-defined goals help guide an organization’s actions, and can help them determine which areas or programs have succeeded and failed. Setting a measurable target allows organizations to determine to what extent they’ve met their goals. It is also important that goals be plausibly achievable; goals that are predictably over- or undershot tell an organization little about how well their programs have done. Goals should be relevant to the organization’s longer-term mission, both to guide their actions and to help them evaluate success. Finally, including time limits is especially important, as it keeps a charity accountable to their expectations of success. 

128. Open Cages has told us that “Some of our short-term goals (including examples from different spheres of activities) are:

     • [Instituting] cage-free policies among 20 biggest retailers
     • Improving our end-of-year fundraising campaign by 33%
     • Implementation of a restaurant campaign in Ukraine
     • Start of a campaign to introduce the position of a public litigator delegated to animal abuse cases
     • Creating a website for an upcoming broiler campaign”

     —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017)
     These goals refer to fairly specific outcomes; in the case of the first two goals, these outcomes are fairly straightforward to measure, while for the final three goals a specific method to measure success was not described to us. All of the target outcomes are relevant to Open Cages’ goal of helping farmed animals. Given the track record of Open Cages and of other organizations conducting similar work, we think these goals are plausibly achievable. 

129. “The way that Otwarte Klatki (Open Cages) measures the outcomes of their programs depends on the program, as they are involved in many different types of activism. Initially, the focus was on trying to get a lot of publicity via investigations. After receiving that, they shifted their focus to lobbying and corporate outreach actions.” —Conversation with Dobrosława Gogłoza of Open Cages (2017) 

130. “The egg campaign has changed a lot. To begin with, the campaign sought to engage a lot of celebrities and provided lots of content to the media. After a while, enough media attention had been garnered, and it was time to start capitalizing on all of the work from the investigations.” —Conversation with Dobrosława Gogłoza of Open Cages (2017) 

131. “The way we look at new and ongoing projects is to look every 6 months at all our activities, think about our plans for the future, and see if there are some projects we could close or limit to create a place for new endeavors. In doing it, we ask for feedback from people inside and outside of the organization, to get as unbiased of a perspective as we can.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

132. “While trying to measure if we are still willing to pursue some activities we ask ourselves some questions, like:

     • Does it align with our strategy? […]
     • Will it be the best use of our time compared to other programs we are focusing on at this moment? […]
     • Will this bring more resources, contacts and respectability to the organization and the whole farmed animal advocacy movement?
     • Will this activity secure us against risks to the movement and the organization?”

     —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

133. “While trying to measure if we are still willing to pursue some activities we ask ourselves some questions, like: […]

     • Do we have any data that suggests that it’s such a good idea that we should re-think our strategy?
     • For how long are we willing to test new idea before we decide to drop it?
     • How are we going to decide if the program is successful?”

     —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

134. They have told us that they are focused on right-wing discussions at the moment because they believe the current Polish government is right-wing: “the current Polish government is right-wing, so at this point, Open Cages is primarily observing right-wing media to track its progress with campaigns like the fur ban[.]” —Conversation with Dobrosława Gogłoza of Open Cages (2017) 

135. When asked how they evaluate their program outcomes, Open Cages replied that “Open Cages is primarily observing right-wing media to track its progress with campaigns like the fur ban, a ban which they believe they are closer than ever to achieving […] They also have a restaurant outreach campaign, and are tracking the number of restaurants that join and agree to provide vegan options to diners.” —Conversation with Dobrosława Gogłoza of Open Cages (2017) 

136. “Open Cages regularly tests new, larger projects, then meets to evaluate and discuss them […] Within the organization, failure is seen as a positive byproduct of a strong and determined effort—whereas lack of failures can indicate a lack of effort.” —Conversation with Dobrosława Gogłoza of Open Cages (2017) 

137. “Open Cages stopped giving educational talks in schools. This was never the organization’s focus, but seemed to be a popular topic with their activists, as many of them found it rewarding. After trying for a few months, Open Cages realized it was not the most effective use of their time. Open Cages also stopped publishing their online magazine, due to lack of interest and readership. Most of the readers were already members, and it was far more efficient to just share articles and links internally, without needing to go through the effort of producing a separate online publication.” —Conversation with Dobrosława Gogłoza of Open Cages (2017) 

138. “Open Cages found that revealing to the public that mother foxes were so stressed that they were chewing off the limbs of their babies was far more impactful than any data provided by the investigations—as was the naming of individual rescued fox cubs. This was a tremendous lesson in how to conduct investigations. Now Open Cages is much more focused on telling a cohesive, relatable story to the media, instead of just providing data gathered from handbooks or farmers. Right now they are not conducting any large-scale investigations; they are devoting less money to them, but are getting much better media results.” —Conversation with Dobrosława Gogłoza of Open Cages (2017) 

139. “Our values:

     • Our actions focus on farm animals, especially factory farming
     • We believe that farming animals for meat, eggs, milk and fur is a very serious problem, especially due to the number of animals involved […]
     • We believe in effective activism
     • We read and study a lot so that we know how to reach people most effectively
       • If we decide that our initial ideas were not perfect, we are ready to change our mind or approach, as long as it’s justified
       • We don’t stick to our ways just because ‘we have always done it this way’
       • We always try to innovate and improve the way we work.”

     —Open Cages Overview (2017) 

140. “We are an association and choosing Board Members from among the active members is the legal requirement for us (associations are self-governed).” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017)
     Since they are an association, the voting body of the organization consists of fifteen people. This is a legal requirement, and those fifteen people include the seven members of Open Cages’ board.” —Conversation with Dobrosława Gogłoza of Open Cages (2017) 

141. “At this moment we also have 2 staff members that are not members of the voting group, but are invited to meetings of the group that take place twice a year […] We could create an additional advisory board and we are now working on establishing it, mostly to bring more knowledge and experience from the business sector[.]” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

142. “Our values:

     • Our actions focus on farm animals, especially factory farming
     • We believe that farming animals for meat, eggs, milk and fur is a very serious problem, especially due to the number of animals involved […]
     • We believe in effective activism
     • We read and study a lot so that we know how to reach people most effectively
       • If we decide that our initial ideas were not perfect, we are ready to change our mind or approach, as long as it’s justified
       • We don’t stick to our ways just because ‘we have always done it this way’
       • We always try to innovate and improve the way we work.”

     —Open Cages Overview (2017) 

143. “Cooperation in Poland is complicated; since Open Cages is the first organization in the country of its kind, they are pioneering a lot of new work with their campaigns. The one exception is with the fur campaign, on which they are in communication with the organization Viva!” —Conversation with Dobrosława Gogłoza of Open Cages (2017) 

144. For example, there appear to be relatively few Polish (or other Eastern European) charities in international alliances. Open Cages is currently one of two Polish organizations in the Eurogroup for Animals; the other appears to focus on horses. Similarly, they are one of two Polish organizations in the Fur Free Alliance, and have mentioned working with the other organization, Viva! Open Cages also appears to be the only Poland-based member organization of the Open Wing Alliance, although they have mentioned collaborating with the Germany-based Albert Schweitzer Foundation (ASF) on ASF’s work in Poland. There is one Polish organization in the European Vegetarian Union, Fundacja Fabryka UTU; our limited impression is that they primarily focus on developing artistic spaces and cultural events. 

145. “ProVeg is another group with which they have been working. Open Cages has also been providing the Albert Schweitzer Foundation with help on strategy, legal issues, and helping them find workers in Poland.” —Conversation with Dobrosława Gogłoza of Open Cages (2017) 

146. “Open Cages is expecting that collaborating with Albert Schweitzer in Poland will be easier because the organizations share similar strategies—and both work in the area of corporate campaigns. There is already communication and agreement about the companies that will be targeted.” —Conversation with Dobrosława Gogłoza of Open Cages (2017) 

147. “Cooperation in Poland is complicated; since Open Cages is the first organization in the country of its kind, they are pioneering a lot of new work with their campaigns. The one exception is with the fur campaign, on which they are in communication with the organization Viva!” —Conversation with Dobrosława Gogłoza of Open Cages (2017) 

148. “Together with friends from Latvia, they have started a network of Eastern European organizations to target countries with no farmed animal movement.” —Conversation with Dobrosława Gogłoza of Open Cages (2017) 

149. When discussing the other organizations in their alliance, Open Cages noted that “collaboration with these groups allows Open Cages to share their strategy, know-how, and experience—which is particularly important given that they anticipate that these newer groups will face challenges similar to those that they themselves faced.” —Conversation with Dobrosława Gogłoza of Open Cages (2017) 

150. “Open Cages encourages motivated activists in nearby countries to start their own organizations, and they offer support and mentoring. They also reach out on behalf of these activists for funding opportunities.” —Conversation with Dobrosława Gogłoza of Open Cages (2017) 

151. “Open Cages is a member of the Fur Free Alliance and of the Eurogroup for Animals […] Open Cages is now also cooperating with The Humane League, along with other organizations involved in the Open Wing Alliance.” —Conversation with Dobrosława Gogłoza of Open Cages (2017) 

152. Open Cages is also listed as a member organization on the Open Wing Alliance website. 

153. In private communication, Open Cages has told us that many of their Board Members have a lot of non-NGO job experience, but they have generally decided not to include this experience on the LinkedIn profiles that ACE perused because they felt it was not directly relevant to their current work. 

154. Open Cages’ Board Members, their backgrounds, and their roles at Open Cages are listed in Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part One (2017). 

155. See these three standards for nonprofits in the U.S. suggesting between five and seven Board Members as a minimum. 

156. “We are an association and choosing Board Members from among the active members is the legal requirement for us (associations are self-governed). We could create an additional advisory board and we are now working on establishing it, mostly to bring more knowledge and experience from the business sector, but this is not a common thing to do in Poland. It is more common to institute a separate board if you decide to run your NGO as a foundation, but we did not want to do it this way, because foundations are much less democratic.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

157. We’re aware of two studies of nonprofit board diversity that found that diverse boards are associated with better fundraising and social performance, as well as with the use of inclusive governance practices that allow the board to incorporate community perspectives into their strategic decision making. 

158. “A lot of things Open Cages does depends on the situation in Poland. Since they are an association, the voting body of the organization consists of fifteen people. This is a legal requirement, and those fifteen people include the seven members of Open Cages’ board.” —Conversation with Dobrosława Gogłoza of Open Cages (2017) 

159. Open Cages has told us that the board “is the group that works on strategy.” —Conversation with Dobrosława Gogłoza of Open Cages (2017) 

160. “It is also important to clarify that all members of the board participate in shaping the strategy of the organization and planning the future campaigns. All members of the board take part in the activities of the most important campaigns of the organization.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

161. “At this moment we also have two staff members that are not members of the voting group, but are invited to meetings of the group that take place twice a year.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

162. “Their specific strategies vary significantly depending on the individual campaign and depending on who is running it—they communicate as much as they can with the different campaign coordinators in order to allow them their voice.” —Conversation with Dobrosława Gogłoza of Open Cages (2017) 

163. “We are having regular online meetings and day long staff retreats (our work is 100% remote, there is no office) to discuss all possible plans and concerns.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part One (2017) 

164. “The Danish group Anima was also helpful, in that they gifted Open Cages money to allow them to begin running their own campaigns (and also mentored them through the process). Open Cages is now also cooperating with The Humane League, along with other organizations involved in the Open Wing Alliance […] There is a special system in Poland where individuals can give 1% of their income when doing taxes at the end of the year. This will be the first year that Open Cages will be seeing results from the 1% campaign, and anything from zero to half a million dollars is possible. Open Cages is also exploring possibilities for growth in western countries where there is a better fundraising climate.” —Conversation with Dobrosława Gogłoza of Open Cages (2017) 

165. “When we set our development strategy we investigate key gaps in funding that could push the whole organization forward and give the biggest returns on investment in our campaigning. We are also cautious to not get too dependent on grants or single funding sources […] Just at the end of 2015, we identified that hiring one person as a dedicated fundraiser is the best investment. Because fundraising in eastern countries is very limited we pooled 12 people [who] offered to pledge about 10% of their monthly income to fund this very position.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part One (2017) 

166. “Open Cages’ activists are not just volunteers who leaflet, but are involved at many different levels—including at higher levels in the organization.” —Conversation with Dobrosława Gogłoza of Open Cages (2017) 

167. Private communication with a volunteer for Open Cages, 2017 

168. “Source of Income (2016)

     • 81% individual donations
     • 11% grants
     • 6.5% – for profit activities (mostly CARE Conference)
     • 1.5% support from business”

     —Open Cages Overview (2017) 

169. “Our revenue generating programs are VegFests and our merchandise. In the past year these generated $13,350.” —Comprehensive Review Questions for Open Cages (2017) 

170. “Corporate Outreach (grant from Open Wing Alliance) Coordinator […] We also received a grant from OWA to hire 2 people in Ukraine (Corporate Outreach and IT) and a grant from PETA to hire one person in Lithuania and one person in Estonia.” —Open Cages Overview (2017) 

171. “We are also receiving donations from Anima (Denmark) for one full time salary.” —Comprehensive Review Questions for Open Cages (2017) 

172. “Just at the end of 2015, we identified that hiring one person as a dedicated fundraiser is the best investment. Because fundraising in eastern countries is very limited we pooled 12 people [who] offered to pledge about 10% of their monthly income to fund this very position.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part One (2017) 

173. “It is difficult for them to form any [fundraising] expectations at all; when the organization began, public opinion was that it was impossible to fundraise for farmed animal welfare in Poland. They are still testing a lot of methods to reach people who are not as farmed-animal-friendly and get them to support Open Cages’ work.” —Conversation with Dobrosława Gogłoza of Open Cages (2017) 

174. “There is a special system in Poland where individuals can give 1% of their income when doing taxes at the end of the year. This will be the first year that Open Cages will be seeing results from the 1% campaign, and anything from zero to half a million dollars is possible. Open Cages is also exploring possibilities for growth in western countries where there is a better fundraising climate.” —Conversation with Dobrosława Gogłoza of Open Cages (2017) 

175. “I am confident that by the time we start hiring significantly more people, we will have also developed more policies and procedures about hiring, professional development, and many other areas of our work […] We are a volunteer based organization and we mostly hire our volunteers.” —Comprehensive Review Questions for Open Cages (2017) 

176. “We are a volunteer based organization and we mostly hire our volunteers. Therefore the opportunities for development begin even before people become staff, and all our development opportunities are open for both staff members and volunteers […] We inform activists where the skill gaps are that the organization needs to fill and that we will be happy to cover or participate in the costs if someone decided to learn it.

     • All volunteers participate in initial training where we teach about how we work.
     • Volunteers and staff participate in yearly 3-day-long training retreat, with lectures and workshops. We invite people from other organizations to give talks or teach skills.
     • We organize additional trainings with professionals depending on the needs of our teams (e.g., legal interventions on factory farms, media, PR, web writing).
     • We connect both our key volunteers and staff members with people from other organizations that work in similar campaigns, so that they can learn from each other and exchange information.
     • We invite people from other organizations and organize trainings for both volunteers and staff.
     • We cover the costs of any commercial trainings for both staff and volunteers if they are connected to skills that are important for the organization and even encourage people to participate in them.”

     —Comprehensive Review Questions for Open Cages (2017) 

177. • “Volunteers and staff participate in yearly 3-day-long training retreat, with lectures and workshops […]
     • We connect both our key volunteers and staff members with people from other organizations that work in similar campaigns, so that they can learn from each other and exchange information […]
     • We cover the costs of any commercial trainings for both staff and volunteers if they are connected to skills that are important for the organization and even encourage people to participate in them.”

     —Comprehensive Review Questions for Open Cages (2017) 

178. “Many of our volunteers got jobs in other NGOs or commercial companies because of the skills and experience gathered in Open Cages.” —Comprehensive Review Questions for Open Cages (2017) 

179. This year we attempted to speak confidentially with two non-leadership staff members from each comprehensively evaluated charity. To protect their confidentiality, what we learned in these conversations is paraphrased in the review, and references to these conversations are identified only as “Private communication with an employee of [Charity], 2017.” For more information, see our blog post discussing this change. In the case of Open Cages, due to their small staff and high number of volunteers, we conducted these conversations with volunteers. 

180. Private communication with a volunteer for Open Cages, 2017 

181. Private communication with a volunteer for Open Cages, 2017 

182. Private communication with a volunteer for Open Cages, 2017 

183. “When it comes to ethnic diversity Polish society is really homogeneous. 97.7% of the population is Polish. The biggest minority is Silesian, which technically is also Polish, and there is no discrimination against Silesian people in our country (it’s mostly a language minority, people from this region speak both standard Polish and the Silesian dialect, that has a lot of German vocabulary) […] Most of the other minorities come from other European countries, like Germany, Ukraine, Belarus.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part One (2017) 

184. “Our approach to diversity in hiring is mostly based in trying to achieve the possibly most diverse pool of volunteer-activists and by strong focus on internal transparency.” —Comprehensive Review Questions for Open Cages (2017) 

185. “We are constantly looking for ways to attract volunteers with diverse backgrounds and skillsets, because this enriches our perspectives. At this moment we are looking into ways to include more activists who are:

     • Immigrants from Ukraine/Belarus/Russia
     • 40+ (which is probably more difficult than in the USA or Western Europe, because the AR movement itself is quite young here)
     • Religious (since animal rights is mostly connected to left wing and secular communities in Poland, and we feel the need to improve our communication with religious people, who are the majority of the population in Poland)

     In our opinion those are 3 major areas where we could improve.” —Comprehensive Review Questions for Open Cages (2017) 

186. “Recently there is significant growth of the number of Ukrainian immigrants in Poland, and we also have several Ukrainian activists in [Open Cages]. They are very helpful in our process of establishing Open Cages in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia—we consider them experts in this field and they are involved in all the decisions about plans in the Russian-speaking region.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part One (2017) 

187. “Before addressing the organization-specific policies regarding discrimination and harassment let me state that as a registered nonprofit and a public benefit organization, Open Cages has to comply with Polish legislation, including the labor law. Both the European Union and Polish law strongly prohibits any discrimination in employment […] To evade the possibility of discrimination we make all processes connected to hiring transparent for all activists: from salaries to daily plans of hired staff and results of evaluation.” —Comprehensive Review Questions for Open Cages (2017) 

188. During our review process we performed Google searches wherein we paired the terms “harassment,” “discrimination,” and “lawsuit” with the names of senior members of each organization’s leadership. For Open Cages we performed this search in both English and Polish. 

189. Private communication with a volunteer for Open Cages, 2017 

190. Private communication with a volunteer for Open Cages, 2017 

191. “In any event, consumer action alone is unlikely to constitute the sole, or even the greatest, response to the animal welfare issue.” —Anderson, J. (2011). Protection for the Powerless: Political Economy History Lessons for the Animal Welfare Movement. Stanford Journal of Animal Law and Policy, 4(1). 

192. “Moreover, the movement’s focus on mass consumer dietary change has little historical or empirical basis, despite being our movement’s main strategy.” —Burns, B. (2015). Why Beyonce Going Vegan is Bad for Animals. Direct Action Everywhere. 

193. “Most abolitionists did not see the free produce movement as being vital to the cause. A few dedicated proponents were able to stay completely away from slave goods but a number of other abolitionists endorsed the concept only when convenient. Many more ignored the issue altogether. The movement never grew large enough to gain the benefit of the economies of scale, and the cost of ‘free produce’ was always higher than competing goods. Though William Lloyd Garrison in Boston, founder of the American Anti-Slavery Society, initially proclaimed at a convention in 1840 that his wool suit was made without slave labor, he later examined the results of the movement and criticized it as an ineffective method to fight slavery, and as a distraction from more important work.” —Wikipedia entry on the free produce movement, a relatively well-studied historical example of a movement focused on individual changes in consumption. 

194. Jacy Reese mentions the example of the anti-slavery movement which, from its beginnings, focused on its opposition to slavery as an institution. “From its inception, however, the [anti-slavery] activists focused on a radical call for complete abolition, rather than incremental reform for slaves or individually changing the behavior of slave-owners or consumers of slave-produced goods.” —Reese, J. (2015). Confrontation, Consumer Action, and Triggering Events. Academia.edu. 

195. “Moral outrage is also described as “a response to the behavior of others, never one’s own.” It seems natural that institutional messaging would be more likely to spark the emotion because it puts the blame for the issue on an outside institution or one that the audience member is only a small part of, usually the animal agriculture industry or society as a whole.” —Reese, J. (2016). The Animal-Free Food Movement Should Move towards an Institutional Message. Medium. 

196. “Any outreach focused on personal dietary change is for us always a tool to develop opportunities for institutional changes and changes in public attitude.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

197. “We are absolutely aware that focusing on individual dietary changes will not bring a breakthrough in the situation of farmed animals, but it can help create space for shifting more general public attitudes and make small but meaningful corporate and legislative changes.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

198. “We also generally believe that it will be easier to change people’s attitudes if they are not so invested in everyday use of animal products.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

199. “By engaging in dietary outreach, we are able to reach out to a big number of people, who can form a good consumer base for new startups in plant-based meat alternatives.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

200. “We also believe that it is important that animal protection organizations educate their followers and prepare them for new technologies in replacing animal products.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

201. “By making sure that as a movement we are considered experts in this area, we might be able to mitigate the risk of opposition to “lab-meat”, similar to the one that GMOs are now facing.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

202. “Taking a page from human rights efforts, disruptive protest and civil disobedience tactics have had a resurgence within the animal rights movement, largely due to the efforts of Direct Action Everywhere […] In fact, continuing to use these tactics risks stunting our movement’s growth and making it more difficult to sway the public to our side.” —Felsinger, A. (2016). Direct Action Leading Where? Medium. 

203. “We fostered local protests against new mink farms and other factory farms.” —Open Cages’ Accomplishments (2016) 

204. • “Big public outreach campaign against the use of cage eggs that laid the ground for our corporate campaigns
       • We published investigations and persuaded the most prominent cooking celebrities in Poland that were faces of many brands of retailers to condemn cage eggs […]
     • Maintained a strong presence in the national media and public debate through investigations, open rescues and new technologies like virtual reality […]
     • Published the results of two investigations into fur farming and they were reported in major national media.”

     —Open Cages’ Accomplishments (2016) 

205. “To mitigate the risk created by those attempts to criminalize our image and to balance some of our messages or topics that could be considered radical, we engage in a range of activities that position us as experts and partners for politicians and businesses, and contribute to a more open and friendly image of animal rights activists.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

206. “Our utmost concern connected to legislation is that we are witnessing the shrinking of democratic space and attempts to criminalize or discourage some civil activities (like public gatherings) in whole regions of Eastern Europe, including countries of our interest—Poland and Ukraine mostly.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

207. “Our utmost concern connected to legislation is that we are witnessing the shrinking of democratic space and attempts to criminalize or discourage some civil activities (like public gatherings) in whole regions of Eastern Europe, including countries of our interest—Poland and Ukraine mostly. This tendency poses a big risk to non-governmental organizations and civil society in general, with human rights and environmental NGOs being the most affected.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

208. “Learning from the experience of other Polish or foreign NGOs, we are aware that under these circumstances the kind of tactics used by targeted organization is sometimes insignificant. Any kinds of repressions are triggered, rather, by the political agenda of decision makers or collusion with lobby than by actual activities organizations conduct. We consider Open Cages resilient to most common tools used to systemically incapacitate NGOs, like suspension of funding—mostly because we are independent from governmental and public grants and have wide support among diverse social groups. However we are closely watching public debate about non-governmental organizations and are ready to form alliances against potential crackdown on civil organizations.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

209. “The actual backfire risk of our activities we assess as mediocre […] But we are aware of the fact that some tactics can actually backfire in eyes of public opinion—more often resulting in ridicule than in anger—so we are constantly looking for clues on how our work is perceived by the media and the society in general and we are always ready to change the way we do things if we realize it is not working the way we wanted.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

210. “The perception of “aggressiveness” of some tactics may be different in every society, but daily public debate in East European countries happens to be far more aggressive than any of our messages could be—like Polish miners burning the tires in front of Parliament in protest to closing of coal mines or occupation of the Parliament by MPs in Poland or Ukraine.
     Protests and blockades are still part of political culture of our region as we still remember the opposition to the Soviet Regime. The local communities we support in their fight to prevent the factory farm investments on their backyard often engage in protests, roadblocks, and barricades, proving that the most radical tactics used to stop factory farming are grass-rooted and perceived as acceptable even by countryside inhabitants—not to mention very favorable media and local politicians that use the opportunities to bond with the rural electorate.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

211. “Those protests are actually the most radical activities we ever supported and they were not even organized by us but by the “ordinary people” we cooperate with and still they were only non-violent acts of civil disobedience that are granted and protected under European Union law.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

212. “To highlight how soft our tactics and image may appear when comparing to the “radicalized” image of the animal rights movement we can say that some of the most radical incidents (alleged property destruction and release of animals) have appeared to be “false flags” crafted by mink farmers as a part of black PR campaigns when they failed to find enough scandalizing content from our activities.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

213. “Animal advocates give awards to slaughterhouse designers and publicly praise supermarket chains that sell supposed “humanely” raised and slaughtered corpses and other “happy” animal products. This approach does not lead people incrementally in the right direction. Rather, it gives them a reason to justify going backwards. It focuses on animal treatment rather than animal use and deludes people into thinking that welfare regulations are actually resulting in significant protection for animals.” —Francione, G. (2007). “Happy” Meat/Animal Products: A Step in the Right Direction or “An Easier Access Point Back” to Eating Animals? Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach. 

214. “While cage free eggs may be more humane than battery cage eggs, they are still far from ideal […] Offering minor improvements for the way we treat farmed animals is a small step, however, it should not be misinterpreted as a win.” —Buff, E. (2015). Why California’s New Animal Welfare Law is a HUGE Lesson for Animal Activists. One Green Planet. 

215. Although most advocates agree that it is less bad for an animal to be raised for food with less suffering, some believe that the act of farming animals is intrinsically harmful and even if we reduced or eliminated suffering in animal agriculture, it would still be very bad. Gary Francione has made claims that seem to suggest this view, such as: “They are angry that I am what they call an “absolutist” who maintains that we cannot justify *any* animal use. They are right. I am an absolutist in this regard—just as I am an “absolutist” with respect to rape, child molestation, and other violations of fundamental human rights. Indeed, I would not have it any other way. Absolutism is the only morally acceptable response to the violation of fundamental rights whether of humans or nonhumans.” —Francione, G. (2015). A Lot of People are Angry with Me—And They are Right. Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach. 

216. Cage-free systems might also cause or increase some welfare issues. For instance, in cage-free systems, “hens stir up dust while walking on the floor, which contains some of the birds’ manure, elevating ammonia levels.” —Kesmodel, D. (2015). Cage-Free Hens Study Finds Little Difference in Egg Quality. Wall Street Journal. 

217. We ourselves have expressed this concern, such as in our report on corporate outreach, even though we believe overall that humane reform has a net benefit on the likelihood of further improvements for animals. 

218. “Is it not just a little ironic that a representative of the Meat and Livestock Commission understands perfectly what is going on here? “Happy” meat makes “the whole thing look more acceptable.” “Happy” meat means more meat eaters and more slaughtered animals.” —Francione, G. (2007). “Happy” Meat/Animal Products: A Step in the Right Direction or “An Easier Access Point Back” to Eating Animals? Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach. 

219. “There is a clear trend that suggests Chipotle and McDonald’s are playing something close to a zero-sum game for customers. U.S. bar and restaurant sales grew just 2.9% in 2014, according to Technomic. After inflation, restaurants are fighting for a larger slice of a fixed pie.” —Cooper, T. (2015). Why Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. Will Eat McDonald’s Corporation’s Lunch. The Motley Fool. 

220. See, for example:
     Animal Charity Evaluators. (2016). “Models of Media Influence on Demand for Animal Products.” Animal Charity Evaluators.
     Cordts, A., Nitzko, S., & Spiller, A. (2014). “Consumer Response to Negative Information on Meat Consumption in Germany.” International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 17(A), 83–106.
     Tiplady, C. M., Walsh, D. B., & Phillips, C. J. C. (2013). “Public Response to Media Coverage of Animal Cruelty.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26(4), 869–885.
     Tonsor, G. T., & Olynk N. J. (2010). “Impacts of Animal Well-Being and Welfare Media on Meat Demand.” Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62(1), 59–72. 

221. “For example, thanks to Josh Balk’s [of Hampton Creek Foods] relationship with Compass Group, Compass Group has switched to Just Mayo for all their mayonnaise, which has removed an unbelievable number of eggs from the supply chain. Similarly, THL is campaigning for Shake Shack to sell veggie burgers at the moment. This kind of work would be very valuable: directly, for the animals involved, and indirectly, for the news coverage produced.” —Conversation with David Coman-Hidy of The Humane League (2015) 

222. “This potential problem of shifting consumer attitudes toward animals in a negative direction is something we always worried about and weighed in our strategic planning.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

223. “When we had started our campaign focused on cage egg farming in 2014 we believed that there was enough evidence against increasing complacency. Currently with more data available and more experts investigating spillover effects like Open Philanthropy Project research, we are feeling even more strongly that there are convincing arguments for this advocacy approach.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

224. “The most convincing arguments we see are the fact that there is no historical precedence of such effect or even weak positive evidence that these tactics decrease complacency (Henry Spira campaigns would be a good example).” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

225. “Also, moral progress seems to be gradual—so exposing people to horrors of animal farming may be best done by focusing on the practices they are the most likely to be against, or to push the moral circle further with foot-in-the-door approach.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

226. “Other major factors include tractability of such an approach and the scale of suffering that the most cruel practices cause […] The final argument is that these tactics are not the only ones in animal advocacy so while helping so many animals is crucial, we can also reach to other, more receptive audiences with arguments against animal farming and suffering.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

227. “That being said we still think that increasing complacency and moral excuses for eating animal products is a possible risk.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

228. “We believe animal advocates should consider such downsides of any intervention they employ and seek new data and evidence about whether current programs are not net harmful or not both in the short term and the long term.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

229. “We are ready to change approach if new evidence emerges.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

230. “We think helping farmed animals is the animal cause that currently offers the most promising blend of scale, tractability, and neglectedness […] For the casual funder who wants a cause to support where the average organization will be helping many animals, farm animal advocacy is, in our opinion, the best match. For donors who want to do more research, but do not necessarily want to start an organization or fund very speculative research, we think that farm animal advocacy is a good place to look for organizations that can demonstrate high effectiveness.” —Animal Charity Evaluators. (2017). Prioritizing Causes. Animal Charity Evaluators. 

231. “Of animals used and killed by humans in the United States, over 99.6% are farmed animals, about 0.2% are animals used in laboratories, 0.07% are used for clothing, and 0.03% are killed in companion animal shelters.” —Bockman, J. (2016). Why Farmed Animals? Animal Charity Evaluators. 

232. The FAO (data accessed here) estimates that in 2014 347,603,000 rabbits were slaughtered for meat in Europe. The FAO doesn’t report any data on rabbits farmed for meat in North America, though a USDA report from 2002 (the U.S. Rabbit Industry Profile) estimated that around 2 million rabbits were slaughtered for meat in the U.S. in 2001. 

233. See the table showing approximate global populations of some animals on our page about prioritizing causes. 

234. “Due to the numbers of fur animals in both countries and the specific context of Eastern Europe we don’t think there is a reason to exclude fur animals from the pool of “farmed animals.” Technically and legally, all the fur-bearing animals in Europe are farmed.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

235. According to Fur Europe, around 8.6 million animals are killed for their fur each year in Poland, and around 1.5 million are killed for their fur each year in Lithuania. According to FAO statistics for 2014, there are, for example, over 21 million pigs in Poland, but only around 4 million cattle (meat and dairy combined). According to FAO statistics for 2014, there are for example 8 million laying hens in Lithuania, but only around 1 million pigs. 

236. “In Poland fur is actually one of the biggest issues: the amount of fur-bearing animals is comparable to the number of pigs and milk cows, and bigger than the number of cows bred for meat consumption. Poland is one of the 3 biggest fur-producing countries in the world (together with China and Denmark) […] In Lithuania the number of animals raised for fur far exceeds that of cows, pigs, goats, and sheep combined (2.5 million and 1.5 million respectively). We also have almost the same amount of egg laying hens as we have fur bearing animals. Only the broiler chickens (54 million) exceed the number of fur animals here.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

237. While our sources also showed that the number of fur-bearing animals farmed in these countries was similar to the number of animals farmed for some types of food, some of the particulars were different. According to Fur Europe, around 8.6 million animals are killed for their fur each year in Poland, and around 1.5 million are killed for their fur each year in Lithuania. According to FAO statistics for 2014, there are, for example, over 21 million pigs in Poland, but only around 4 million cattle (meat and dairy combined). According to FAO statistics for 2014, there are for example 8 million laying hens in Lithuania, but only around 1 million pigs. 

238. “Even though we were eager to work towards reducing broiler consumption, it seemed better to get the public on our side by fighting fur farming (which is a form of factory farming). We also think that banning fur farming—which is absolutely achievable—would reduce more suffering than switching cage farms into barn systems, since the number of animals is the same.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

239. “Unlike in the U.S., U.K., or some other countries in Western Europe, we cannot just benefit from the work that has already been done by other organizations and move on from there, but we need to create the momentum and build the real movement around farmed animal issues. Because of this, in both countries we decided that it strategically makes sense for us to start with campaigns that are easier to accept by members of the society, so that we gather supporters and general organizational capacity before we move on to campaigns focusing on animals that people do not empathize with so easily (like birds).” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

240. One example of concerning conditions would be this description by Open Cages: “Our utmost concern connected to legislation is that we are witnessing the shrinking of democratic space and attempts to criminalize or discourage some civil activities (like public gatherings) in whole regions of Eastern Europe, including countries of our interest—Poland and Ukraine mostly. This tendency poses a big risk to non-governmental organizations and civil society in general, with human rights and environmental NGOs being the most affected.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

241. This information can be found in Open Cages’ Accomplishments (2016) 

242. “We are sure that we played a role in starting a media and political debate in the issues of fur farming and egg farming. Before our investigations on both subjects there were almost no materials in media about the welfare of hens, minks, and foxes.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

243. “Nowadays media starts writing about it independently from us, which is a sign of established awareness of problems connected with those industries.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

244. “At the same time there is almost no discussion about the welfare of animals that we are not campaigning about. The only exception being horses (there is a campaign in Poland about the horse trade and horse-driven carriages in the mountain areas). I think this shows that media follows the trends created by organizations.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

245. “In the last elections, political parties started involving animal welfare issues in their party programs, and we were able to bring the issue of animal welfare to pre-election debates.” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017) 

246. “In Lithuania we order public opinion polls to see the attitudes towards farmed animals. On the fur issue we saw that the public opinion shifted 9% (from 58% of the public being against it to 67% against it) in less than a year (both surveys were conducted in 2016). We have published an investigation and had an outdoor ad campaign during the time between the surveys. Our survey on hen welfare showed that 78% of Lithuanians think that cages are not acceptable rearing systems for hens (before investigation it was 75% so not a lot gained here).” —Follow-Up Questions for Open Cages Part Two (2017)